"Clash between Communists(PAME) and Anarchists"

[Mälli]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EOolbDDvvI&feature=related

I looked PAME up in google and it said that its a labour party. I dont think anarchists or the communists will attack each other just like that.

Some people in youtube say they are stalinist. Do you know anything about this sad situation? What was the fight about?

No violence inside the revolutionary movement! Its sad to see people with red and red&black flags beating each other.

[bailey_187]

What do the Green and black flags mean?

[Spawn of Stalin]

Some kind of primitive eco-anarchism I think. Fruckin' primmies.

[Steve_j]

I love that vid :laugh: sums us up in a nut shell


What do the Green and black flags mean?

Green anarchism.

[Intelligitimate]

Go Red team!

[Leo]

I looked PAME up in google and it said that its a labour party.

I think it is a KKE trade-union front group.

[Wanted Man]

Yeah, PAME is a trade union organization (not federation, apparently) linked to the communist party (KKE). This video is from September 2008 btw.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAME (with link to website)

[rebelworker]

I think its fairly common practice for Stalinist organisations to try and destroy other political factions.

I know they used to beat up the Trotskyists and Anarchists in Montreal in the 70's and i have a friend who was shot at by Maoists in her native Uraguay during a demonstration about 10-15 years ago.

I mean its kind of inherent in Bolshevik ideology no?
I dont mean this as a jab or low blow i just think that's kind of the political difference between that line of the left and others.

[bailey_187]

So, Marxist-Leninst Proletarians VS Anarchist Students?

[Steve_j]

Haaa haaa.... just like in spain ay?

[Wanted Man]

I think its fairly common practice for Stalinist organisations to try and destroy other political factions.

I know they used to beat up the Trotskyists and Anarchists in Montreal in the 70's and i have a friend who was shot at by Maoists in her native Uraguay during a demonstration about 10-15 years ago.

I mean its kind of inherent in Bolshevik ideology no?
I dont mean this as a jab or low blow i just think that's kind of the political difference between that line of the left and others.

You can tell who attacked who from the video?

[FSL]

You can tell. No one from PAME makes as much as one step.

[Black Sheep]

:mad:
Do not speculate if not aware of the circumstances.
The video is from the rally which happens annualy at the international conference of thessalonica (a place where cappies from the balkans and other places gather around to show off their stuff, and where the prime minister says stuff about his/her politics and how he/she'll fuck us up).

PAME is the trade union created by,and associated to KKE (well,it is identical).That day marches started at 3 distinct blocks.
The one of GSEE (greek workers' general union, corrupt, where the majority supports the soc-dem and fully reactionary PASOK - panhellenic socialist movement), the one of the autonomous teams and councils which started at Kamara, and the one of PAME.

In general and in an authentic stalinist attitude, everyone who is not KKE/PAME is an opportunist enemy of the people, so PAME as a true cop of the movement, went and sealed off the entrance of the conference lot by going there and staying put, so that the Kamara blocks could not enter and they would not 'wreak havoc, cause police brutality and disperse the rally with tear gas and violence'.

When the Kamara block approached the entrance, they asked the PAME-ites to stand aside and let them pass, and they refused, so after a few verbal confrontations violence emerged.


So,to sum up:
Who the FUCK do they think they are? This disgusting behavior seems to stem off the Leninist vanguardism bullshit.IF you disagree with a certain way of protesting , you have no right to stop me from protesting in a way i see effective.And i dont mean that if i want to protest by murdering civilians they shouldn't intervene, but they sealed off the entrance because they 'speculated that the heathen opportunists would cause trouble and corrupt the rally's meaning and character'.
On top of that, they later accused the Kamara blocks of a provocateur-ish attack to their block, followed by the usual crap about anticommunism, attacks to the CPG by all sides, one against all, etc etc
"He who is not with the CP,is an enemy of the people"

sickening

[Sasha]

reminds me of some stories i heard of people who went to the first of may in istanbul (long time ago) where difrent left factions atacked each other with steel bars and knives....

[Sasha]

can't we put this video on the mainpage with an banner saying welcome to revleft? :lol:

or maybe sticky it in the introductions sub forum?

[Black Sheep]

Some kind of primitive eco-anarchism I think. Fruckin' primmies.
No,it's green anarchism.
At that time the local authorities wanted to build a power plant burning...
a thing that i cant translate.. a mineral fossil fuel anyway
in an urban area,where the law clearly prohibited it.

The struggle was successful and the construction was cancelled.Similar struggles are pending at the illegal construction of a burial place for garbage at Leukimmi,where a fierce struggle is going on against the engineers and the riot police called to fight back the townspeople.Also there has been resistance to the plans of Acheloos river, the diversion of which will cause villages to be destroyed, with a petty sum of money (forced) offered in return.
The 'green anarcho-primmies' are the main political force in these movements.
So shut up and dont dismiss everything because it contradicts your holy books.

[Искра]

Hm, I don't know a lot about KKE I know few stuff which I heard from one Bolshevik here and I'll say you this - commies (Bolsheviks- Maoists) form Croatia will join on anarchist side on this one...

[Andropov]

So ye decided to physically attack the PAME supporters?
Ohh riiiiight...

[Искра]

I dont think anarchists or the communists will attack each other just like that.


http://www.ditext.com/goldman/russia/kron5.jpg

Red Army in front of Kronstadt (which was full with communists and few anarchists)

[ComradeMan]

What do the Green and black flags mean?

Green-Anarchists.
http://www.stewarthomesociety.org/ga/

Have a look at this link too...
http://socialecologylondon.wordpress.com/

[Black Sheep]

So ye decided to physically attack the PAME supporters?
Ohh riiiiight...
This is all you have to say?Do you approve of te stance of PAME?

[Spawn of Stalin]

No,it's green anarchism.
At that time the local authorities wanted to build a power plant burning...
a thing that i cant translate.. a mineral fossil fuel anyway
in an urban area,where the law clearly prohibited it.

The struggle was successful and the construction was cancelled.Similar struggles are pending at the illegal construction of a burial place for garbage at Leukimmi,where a fierce struggle is going on against the engineers and the riot police called to fight back the townspeople.Also there has been resistance to the plans of Acheloos river, the diversion of which will cause villages to be destroyed, with a petty sum of money (forced) offered in return.
The 'green anarcho-primmies' are the main political force in these movements.
So shut up and dont dismiss everything because it contradicts your holy books.
No I won't shut up because the green and black flag does, in many cases, represent primitive anarchism. It's not my fault you anarchists all use the same damn flag for every different niche tendency within your movement. So learn to vary your symbolism, then I might just consider shutting up, but don't count on it.

[syndicat]

okay, so Pol Pot's organization called themselves Marxist-Leninist-Maoists and used the red flag. So we can associate all Leninists and red flag users as being of the same tendency and that's okay with you?

It's worth noting that the Greek Communist Party has worked with and supported PASOC. And PASOC has since gone over to doing the opposite of what it promised in the recent elections, now attacking the working class.

[ls]

No I won't shut up because the green and black flag does, in many cases, represent primitive anarchism. It's not my fault you anarchists all use the same damn flag for every different niche tendency within your movement. So learn to vary your symbolism, then I might just consider shutting up, but don't count on it.

In almost all cases of contemporary anarchism it means green anarchism. At climate camp for instance, you could see a lot of anarchists from AFed with green and black flags in the pictures, so I don't think you are right at all, I've never even seen primitivists at any protest anyway (not that I'm involved in the eco movement).

[Andropov]

This is all you have to say?Do you approve of te stance of PAME?
I think I will wait to hear their side of the arguement before I jump to any rash conclusions.

[Patchd]

I found that hilarious that the two sides took time out of opposing the state to have a little punch up, it's sort of cute, with hindsight, although probably annoying if I were there myself :tt2:

Green and black can symbolise primitivism (although steer well clear of this unless you want to eat berries and shit diarrhoea for the rest of your life) also. But like others have mentioned, it largely represents Green Anarchism. In developing nations in South Asia, such as Indonesia and the Philippines, a lot of the organised Anarchists (as opposed to those who dress as punks and hang around in markets pretending to cause anarchy) here are organised in the rural communities with Green libertarian projects and campaigns.

[FSL]

This is all you have to say?Do you approve of te stance of PAME?


What was wrong with it? You wanted a certain way of demonstration, PAME wants another one. You tried breaking its chains and -as expected- failed miserably. End of the story. How is your opinion more important than someone else's?

You should be happy this was Thessaloniki. Imagine those guys against shipyard workers? That would be a true splatter film.

[Patchd]

What was wrong with it? You wanted a certain way of demonstration, PAME wants another one. You tried breaking its chains and -as expected- failed miserably. End of the story. How is your opinion more important than someone else's?

You should be happy this was Thessaloniki. Imagine those guys against shipyard workers? That would be a true splatter film.
You have placed the blame on the anarchists, you have stated that both sides wanted their own action, but instead of recognising that it was PAME who actually physically restricted the anarchists from continuing with theirs and leaving PAME to have their peaceful demonstration (because you know, they really work), you place the blame on the anarchists attempting to break 'its chains'.

[FSL]

You have placed the blame on the anarchists, you have stated that both sides wanted their own action, but instead of recognising that it was PAME who actually physically restricted the anarchists from continuing with theirs and leaving PAME to have their peaceful demonstration (because you know, they really work), you place the blame on the anarchists attempting to break 'its chains'.



Yes, anarchists emerging with their rocks out of the PAME protest and returning in one minute with Greece's half police force on their tale to meddle in would really have allowed the demo to carry on. Fact is: PAME stands there, anarchists try to get through, anarchists fail.

Try again next time, stop crying.

Regarding tactics: What I know doesn't work, is quasi-terrorism from small, self-appointed vanguards. If it did work that well, then maybe they 'd have more people on their side and they'd be able to get through.

[RotStern]

Mean old Stalinists! Your ruining our revolution again! :(

[Patchd]

Yes, anarchists emerging with their rocks out of the PAME protest and returning in one minute with Greece's half police force on their tale to meddle in would really have allowed the demo to carry on. Fact is: PAME stands there, anarchists try to get through, anarchists fail.

Try again next time, stop crying.

Regarding tactics: What I know doesn't work, is quasi-terrorism from small, self-appointed vanguards. If it did work that well, then maybe they 'd have more people on their side and they'd be able to get through.
Then what the hell are you even doing on this board? Will you be beating Anarchists alongside the state when revolution comes round the corner, because you know, it's the nasty police who are going to come and make things all bad, so you might as well in order to avoid that. The thing is that people generally won't commit to struggle, or actions, if they haven't had any experience of it. When your revolution comes, all you'll be doing is chanting and waving your piss poor slogans, leave politics to the sincere why don't you ;) Would it not have been a better idea for anti-capitalist forces to struggle together against the capitalists' state? You know, considering that you Stalinists had that much energy to fight other anti-capitalist forces, I was wondering what the problem with fighting the capitalists' state was.

"Small, self-appointed vanguards" ... go on, explain.

[Delenda Carthago]

Since Greece seems to be that much of an issue in here,lets take a look on KKE.In this video,you can see the "revolutionaries"of KKE in a collabo with the cops,together against anarchists...This is KKE,dont fool yourself.

Here in Greece we call their youth(KNE),KNAT like MAT,the riot police.

"What do we need MAT for
Since we have the KNAT"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4cbTljoRsw

[FSL]

Then what the hell are you even doing on this board? Will you be beating Anarchists alongside the state when revolution comes round the corner, because you know, it's the nasty police who are going to come and make things all bad, so you might as well in order to avoid that. The thing is that people generally won't commit to struggle, or actions, if they haven't had any experience of it. When your revolution comes, all you'll be doing is chanting and waving your piss poor slogans, leave politics to the sincere why don't you ;) Would it not have been a better idea for anti-capitalist forces to struggle together against the capitalists' state? You know, considering that you Stalinists had that much energy to fight other anti-capitalist forces, I was wondering what the problem with fighting the capitalists' state was.

"Small, self-appointed vanguards" ... go on, explain.


You think that "that much energy to fight other anti-capitalist forces" is not making a single step while attacked and provoked? You're in for a surprise then.
When our revolution comes, the same people who accused us of chanting and waving flags will be crying over our totalitarianism.

Another good reason to make the revolution, feasting on anarchist tears.
(Btw, anarchists are not anti-capitalists. You're petty bourgeois. Thought I'd mention it just so you'll know.)

[Andropov]

Since Greece seems to be that much of an issue in here,lets take a look on KKE.In this video,you can see the "revolutionaries"of KKE in a collabo with the cops,together against anarchists...This is KKE,dont fool yourself.

Here in Greece we call their youth(KNE),KNAT like MAT,the riot police.

"What do we need MAT for
Since we have the KNAT"

d4cbTljoRsw
What is the significance of that video?

[Patchd]

You think that "that much energy to fight other anti-capitalist forces" is not making a single step while attacked and provoked? You're in for a surprise then.
When our revolution comes, the same people who accused us of chanting and waving flags will be crying over our totalitarianism.

Another good reason to make the revolution, feasting on anarchist tears.
(Btw, anarchists are not anti-capitalists. You're petty bourgeois. Thought I'd mention it just so you'll know.)
Lol, without spreading a culture of struggle, how on Earth do you even expect people to be experienced and confident in the removal of the state and classes?

I'd like to see you go into how we're "petty bourgeois", your slander just seems to be based on what Leninists have been saying for years simply as a measure to distract people from Anarchism without actually having to argue it logically. Well done for being a cock. :D

[Mälli]

I just love "true commies" that say anarchists are not anti-capitalist. This thread brings unity to the anti-capitalist movement for sure! :unsure:

[ls]

I just love "true commies" that say anarchists are not anti-capitalist. This thread brings unity to the anti-capitalist movement for sure! :unsure:

If someone was casually observing this forum (say a stormfronter), it would seem like the best idea to post a thread like this in the first place, you wouldn't happen to know anything about that though I'm sure because you want to bring unity to the anti-capitalist movement.

What transpired in this video was probably thanks to something awesomely petty on both sides and is not worth even knowing about, let alone seeing.

[ComradeMan]

No I won't shut up because the green and black flag does, in many cases, represent primitive anarchism. It's not my fault you anarchists all use the same damn flag for every different niche tendency within your movement. So learn to vary your symbolism, then I might just consider shutting up, but don't count on it.

That's funny with all the various hammers and sickles that are flow around the world by various different groups, Maoists, Trotskyites, Leninists etc etc etc...

Pots and kettles?:)

[Искра]

I'm anarcho-syndicalist (which is form of anarchism, right?).
I don't own a flat (neither my parents), I don't own a land (neither my parents), I don't have business (neither my parents), also I study and work (my parents work in library).
Tell me one thing. What's peti-bourgeoisie here? Fact that my parents work in library and not in some 19th century factory from Bolshevik propaganda poster, which, btw. are closed (or in process of closing) in Croatia?

I think that you must be COMPLETE IDIOT to put people of one POLITICAL IDEOLOGY into one class. I don't claim that Leninists are bourgeoisie. Of course, some if they are and also some of them are from working class. You also have liberal, fascist, conservative etc. working class people.

Anarchism is anti-capitalist ideology. Get your self together.

[Patchd]

I just love "true commies" that say anarchists are not anti-capitalist. This thread brings unity to the anti-capitalist movement for sure! :unsure:
I don't think we were ever united with Stalinists anyway. They would have us shot, and have, on many occasions, in addition, you heard him, we've been denounced as petty bourgeois, and we know how Stalinists deal with dissidents, and supposed 'class enemies'. But then to be fair, I grow increasingly contemptuous of Stalinists, their support for reactionaries and reactionary regimes, and the general attitude of most, stemming from their constant need to defend themselves.

[Искра]

Funny thing is that labelling of anarchists as peti-bourgeoisie came from Engels critique of Proudhon, who by the way, has nothing to do with majority of anarchists today and in the 20th century (for example what does anarcho-syndicalism have in common with Proudhon?!) . Lenin used this calcification in one of his work (in which he haven't argument why are anarchists peti-bourgeoisie) and since then Leninists take this as dogma - objective truth.

This is idiotic. I think that we can have more progressive discussion with more arguments and less dogmas.

[Ravachol]

Funny thing is that labelling of anarchists as peti-bourgeoisie came from Engels critique of Proudhon, who by the way, has nothing to do with majority of anarchists today and in the 20th century (for example what does anarcho-syndicalism have in common with Proudhon?!) . Lenin used this calcification in one of his work (in which he haven't argument why are anarchists peti-bourgeoisie) and since then Leninists take this as dogma - objective truth.

This is idiotic. I think that we can have more progressive discussion with more arguments and less dogmas.

this

I know there have been physical confrontations between various factions of the revolutionary left, but then again, I've known of Anarchist factions attacking eachother and even of ML factions attacking ML factions. It's stupid and sectarian but any faction taking an incident or string of incidents somewhere in the world to oppose ANY co-operation with other factions is just as sectarian. For those who actually enjoy the petty sectarianism, I'd advise them to join the various strains of fascist ideology, they've got plenty of experience with petty sectarianism :rolleyes:

[Stranger Than Paradise]

This sectarianism is quite saddening, it's even more saddening to see people on here come on in support of one of the sides.

[Spawn of Stalin]

That's funny with all the various hammers and sickles that are flow around the world by various different groups, Maoists, Trotskyites, Leninists etc etc etc...

Pots and kettles?:)
The hammer and sickle is universal, Comrade. Anarchists, Maoists, lefties, we all use it. Us? We use pictures of Stalin and Mao, Soviet flags and other anti-imperialist imagery to set us apart from Trots and ultra-revisionists. To be fair you would have to be pretty thick to mistaken a group of Marxist-Leninists with a group of Trots at a demo. In fact recently, even the class make-up of each tendency has become wildly different. In this country at least.

[Montag451]

This is sad. If there is to be any hope for a significant social change there must be no physical confrontation between leftist fraction. Without a permanent truce there is no hope.

[Patchd]

This sectarianism is quite saddening, it's even more saddening to see people on here come on in support of one of the sides.
It's not as clear cut as that though, the Anarchists were not being 'sectarian', the Anarchists wanted to do their action and allow PAME to do theirs, PAME refused to let the Anarchists through and physically stopped them from doing so, thus starting a confrontation.

[Andropov]

It's not as clear cut as that though, the Anarchists were not being 'sectarian', the Anarchists wanted to do their action and allow PAME to do theirs, PAME refused to let the Anarchists through and physically stopped them from doing so, thus starting a confrontation.
But its as clear cut as that either.
The PAME demo would not have been able to be continued if the Anarchists started rioting etc.

[Искра]

This is sad. If there is to be any hope for a significant social change there must be no physical confrontation between leftist fraction. Without a permanent truce there is no hope.
Permanent truce?


Originally Posted by Rite-Boii:
But its as clear cut as that either.
The PAME demo would not have been able to be continued if the Anarchists started rioting etc.
So you are afraid of evil Anarchists to ruin your civil demo.... How sweet.

[Patchd]

But its as clear cut as that either.
The PAME demo would not have been able to be continued if the Anarchists started rioting etc.
But what would the PAME demo amounted to? Were they doing anything besides standing outside, chanting and flying red flags?

[Andropov]

So you are afraid of evil Anarchists to ruin your civil demo.... How sweet.
There is no such thing as evil, so thats redundant.
And there are different types of demos for different contexts.
Its not difficult or complex to pull on a wooley face and pelt a petrol bomb but we must ask is it constructive in every context?
To automatically mock someone for questioning this tactic just highlights your lack of Marxist thought again.
But you do enjoy embaressing yourself around here so do continue.

[Andropov]

But what would the PAME demo amounted to? Were they doing anything besides standing outside, chanting and flying red flags?
So you are suggesting that a demo that descends into rioting is automatically more constructive than a civil demo?

[Patchd]

So you are suggesting that a demo that descends into rioting is automatically more constructive than a civil demo?
At times, yes, but as I was not there, it may well have been counter-beneficial in that case. A civil demonstration is one which capitalists have allowed us to make, it is simply getting pissed off at something and then making a loud noise, civil demonstrations occur and I do take part in them, but arguably, a struggle against the state forces is more progressive than simply complaining loudly about them.

[Delenda Carthago]

You think that "that much energy to fight other anti-capitalist forces" is not making a single step while attacked and provoked? You're in for a surprise then.
When our revolution comes, the same people who accused us of chanting and waving flags will be crying over our totalitarianism.

Another good reason to make the revolution, feasting on anarchist tears.
(Btw, anarchists are not anti-capitalists. You're petty bourgeois. Thought I'd mention it just so you'll know.)

eutixos edo stin ellada den exoume na fovomaste kai idiaitera an tha kanei to KKE epanastasi gia na mas steilei sta goulag!:laugh::laugh:

[Delenda Carthago]

What is the significance of that video?

the significance of that video is to show to everyone
A.the relationship between KKE and anarchists.
B.what is the real nature of KKE

Every time the state needs KKE,THE party(:D) is there for the system.We are talking for a party that made a collaboration with the right wing big party,New Democracy,and formed a goverment,back in 89.
We are talking about a party that has attacked all the revolts in Greece after 1946.Polytechnic school occupation in 1973,KKE youth newspaper called the revolt "300 provocateurs with stupid,rediculus anarchist shouts".Now days they say that THEY did the occupation!!!!
We are talkin on a party that attacked one of its greatest figures,Aris Velouhiotis,the leader of the antifascist resistance because he denied to recognice the peace treaty that KKE signed with the rights.And still to this day,they haven't officialy recognise their mistake!They accepted Stalin again but not Veloohiotis.
A party that whoever is not with them,is an "opportunist" or a "secret agent provocateur".

Thats the significance.

[Andropov]

At times, yes, but as I was not there, it may well have been counter-beneficial in that case.
Of course, I do recognise that sometimes they are beneficial but depending on their context.

A civil demonstration is one which capitalists have allowed us to make, it is simply getting pissed off at something and then making a loud noise, civil demonstrations occur and I do take part in them, but arguably, a struggle against the state forces is more progressive than simply complaining loudly about them.
I disagree with that analysis of a civil demo.
I think one of the most important advantages of civil demos is it is an opportunity for Radicalisation of previously neutral working class people.
It gives these people an outlet to "join in" and participate with a more radicalised section of the working class.
In that way civil demos are progressive.
But that is not to say in certain circumstances civil demos are counter-productive and a riot would be more progressive, it all depends on its context.
The major point here is that are tactics should not become our ideology or we should not fetishise about certain tactics.
Tactics are fluid but our ideology must be consistent.

[Andropov]

the significance of that video is to show to everyone
A.the relationship between KKE and anarchists.
B.what is the real nature of KKE

Every time the state needs KKE,THE party(:D) is there for the system.We are talking for a party that made a collaboration with the right wing big party,New Democracy,and formed a goverment,back in 89.
We are talking about a party that has attacked all the revolts in Greece after 1946.Polytechnic school occupation in 1973,KKE youth newspaper called the revolt "300 provocateurs with stupid,rediculus anarchist shouts".Now days they say that THEY did the occupation!!!!
We are talkin on a party that attacked one of its greatest figures,Aris Velouhiotis,the leader of the antifascist resistance because he denied to recognice the peace treaty that KKE signed with the rights.And still to this day,they haven't officialy recognise their mistake!They accepted Stalin again but not Veloohiotis.
A party that whoever is not with them,is an "opportunist" or a "secret agent provocateur".

Thats the significance.
I failed to gather all that from your video.

[Delenda Carthago]

I failed to gather all that from your video.

it was a sneak preview!:D

[FSL]

Lol, without spreading a culture of struggle, how on Earth do you even expect people to be experienced and confident in the removal of the state and classes?

I'd like to see you go into how we're "petty bourgeois", your slander just seems to be based on what Leninists have been saying for years simply as a measure to distract people from Anarchism without actually having to argue it logically. Well done for being a cock. :D


If you -and evidently many others- totally ignore leninism's view on violence, educate yourselves. Or ask, and i 'm sure someone will be kind enough to answer. But bolshevicks didn't throw rocks at anyone and yet were perfectly able to remove the state, classes and anarchists from the scene.

My trollish answer was what was fitting to your trollish comment on "chanting" and "waving", pretty much the whole of Leninism who actually argues for having brains is counter-revolutionary and pacifist then? But it did have you crying over the evil state that did all the supression? How about choosing a side and not arguing for two different things simultaneously?

If you think class struggle will be throwing rocks and molotovs, you're naive beyond repair. It would be you and the likes of you who spread lies.



I don't think we were ever united with Stalinists anyway. They would have us shot


Wouldn't we just sing slogans and wave flags at you? But... but you just said so!

[Искра]

There is no such thing as evil, so thats redundant.
And there are different types of demos for different contexts.
Its not difficult or complex to pull on a wooley face and pelt a petrol bomb but we must ask is it constructive in every context?
To automatically mock someone for questioning this tactic just highlights your lack of Marxist thought again.
But you do enjoy embaressing yourself around here so do continue.
1st I was making fun of your stupid qoute that anarchists will make riots, because we don't know anything else. Funny thing is that you think that civil demo, which is allowed by the capitalist state is better than riots against capitalist state. I'm not claiming that I support riots made by Greek anarchists or that kind of strategy, but still I'm not making such assumptions (like you did) like you. Also, I have organised and took par in a lot of civil demos and I can tell you that demos will never achieve anything. Of course, different situation means different tactics, but you can't forbid some one to protest just because he's an anarchist. We never forbid Marxsists-Leninists to join.

2nd It's not complex or difficult to throw molotov, but it takes guts. It's easy to write about class struggle, about revolution, about riots etc. what's hard its to make something .

3rd I'm not mocking to anybody who critiques something on political level, while you like to make your critiques on personal level. I don't see anything serious in your comment. Where's critique? You just made assumption that anarchist would riot. Also, you put it like it's the worst thing that could ever happen.

Only on who's emberesing himself is you. I don't have to remind you about your childish spamming of my profile, or about that discussion where you instead of making some point just blablabla you gave bad source... you know... you can answer to any source if you know shit.

[Andrei Kuznetsov]

According to a Greek anarchist friend of mine, the KKE is a very reformist organization that is firmly entrenched into the political establishment. Also, they're not so much "Stalinist" as they are old pro-Moscow dinosaurs- a political trend that is notorious for bullying or suffocating more revolutionary currents in their respective countries (think the PCF in France).

The Communist Organization of Greece seems pretty cool, I will admit.

[FSL]

So you are afraid of evil Anarchists to ruin your civil demo.... How sweet.


In short, yes. We can argue with words but if you try to impose your backward views on a leninist party, you can't just expect it to succumb to your righteous revolutionism now, can you?





In the last footnote we cited the opinion of an Economist and of a non-Social -Democratic terrorist, who showed themselves to be accidentally in agreement. Speaking generally, however, there is not an accidental, but a necessary, inherent connection between the two, of which we shall have need to speak later, and which must be mentioned here in connection with the question of education for revolutionary activity. The Economists and the root, namely, subservience to spontaneity, with which we dealt in the preceding chapter as a general phenomenon and which we shall now examine in relation to its effect upon political activity and the political struggle. At first sight, our assertion may appear paradoxical, so great is the difference between those who stress the “drab everyday struggle” and those who call for the most self sacrificing struggle of individuals. But this is no paradox. The Economists and the terrorists merely bow to different poles of spontaneity; the Economists bow to the spontaneity of “the labour movement pure and simple”, while the terrorists bow to the spontaneity of the passionate indignation of intellectuals, who lack the ability or opportunity to connect the revolutionary struggle and the working-class movement into an integral whole. It is difficult indeed for those who have lost their belief, or who have never believed, that this is possible, to find some outlet for their indignation and revolutionary energy other than terror. Thus, both forms of subservience to spontaneity we have mentioned are nothing but the beginning of the implementation of the notorious Credo programme: Let the workers wage their “economic struggle against the employers and the government” (we apologise to the author of the Credo for expressing her views in Martynov’s words. We think we have a right to do so since the Credo, too, says that in the economic struggle the workers "come up against the political regime and let the intellectuals conduct the political struggle by their own efforts — with the aid of terror, of course! This is an absolutely logical and inevitable conclusion which must be insisted on — even though those who are beginning to carry out this programme do not themselves realise that it is inevitable. Political activity has its logic quite apart from the consciousness of those who, with the best intentions, call either for terror or for lending the economic struggle itself a political character. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and, in this case, good intentions cannot save one from being spontaneously drawn “along the line of least resistance”, along the line of the purely bourgeois Credo programme. Surely it is no accident either that many Russian liberals — avowed liberals and liberals that wear the mask of Marxism — whole-heartedly sympathise with terror and try to foster the terrorist moods that have surged up in the present time.
The formation of the Revolutionary-Socialist Svoboda Group which set itself the aim of helping the working-class movement in every possible way, but which included in its programme terror, and emancipation, so to speak, from Social-Democracy — once again confirmed the remarkable perspicacity of P. B. Axelrod, who literally foretold these results of Social-Democratic waverings as far back as the end of 1897 (Present Tasks and Tactics), when he outlined his famous “two perspectives”. All the subsequent disputes and disagreements among Russian Social-Democrats are contained, like a plant in the seed, in these two perspectives.[13] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/witbd/iii.htm#fwV05P419F01)
From this point of view it also becomes clear why Rabocheye Dyelo, unable to withstand the spontaneity of Economism, has likewise been unable to withstand the spontaneity of terrorism. It is highly interesting to note here the specific arguments that Svoboda has advanced in defence of terrorism. It “completely denies” the deterrent role of terrorism (The Regeneration of Revolutionism, p. 64), but instead stresses its “excitative significance”. This is characteristic, first, as representing one of the stages of the breakup and decline of the traditional (pre-Social-Democratic) cycle of ideas which insisted upon terrorism. The admission that the government cannot now be “terrified” and hence disrupted, by terror, is tantamount to a complete condemnation of terror as a system of struggle, as a sphere of activity sanctioned by the programme. Secondly, it is still more characteristic as an example of the failure to understand our immediate tasks in regard to “education for revolutionary activity”. Svoboda advocates terror as a means of “exciting” the working-class movement and of giving it a “strong impetus”. It is difficult to imagine an argument that more thoroughly disproves itself. Are there not enough outrages committed in Russian life without special “excitants” having to be invented? On the other hand, is it not obvious that those who are not, and cannot be, roused to excitement even by Russian tyranny will stand by “twiddling their thumbs” and watch a handful of terrorists engaged in single combat with the government? The fact is that the working masses are roused to a high pitch of excitement by the social evils in Russian life, but we are unable to gather, if one may so put it, and concentrate all these drops and streamlets of popular resentment that are brought forth to a far larger extent than we imagine by the conditions of Russian life, and that must be combined into a single gigantic torrent. That this can be accomplished is irrefutably proved by the enormous growth of the working-class movement and the eagerness, noted above, with which the workers clamour for political literature. On the other hand, calls for terror and calls to lend the economic struggle itself a political character are merely two different forms of evading the most pressing duty now resting upon Russian revolutionaries, namely, the organisation of comprehensive political agitation. Svoboda desires to substitute terror for agitation, openly admitting that “as soon as intensified and strenuous agitation is begun among the masses the excitative function of terror will be ended” (The Regeneration of Revolutionism, p. 68). This proves precisely that both the terrorists and the Economists underestimate the revolutionary activity of the masses, despite the striking evidence of the events that took place in the spring,[14] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/witbd/iii.htm#fwV05P420F01) and whereas the one group goes out in search of artificial “excitants”, the other talks about “concrete demands”. But both fail to devote sufficient attention to the development of their own activity in political agitation and in the organisation of political exposures. And no other work can serve as a substitute for this task either at the present time or at any other.





It was, however, different with Bolshevism’s other enemy within the working-class movement. Little is known in other countries of the fact that Bolshevism took shape, developed and became steeled in the long years of struggle against petty-bourgeois revolutionism, which smacks of anarchism, or borrows something from the latter and, in all essential matters, does not measure up to the conditions and requirements of a consistently proletarian class struggle. Marxist theory has established—and the experience of all European revolutions and revolutionary movements has fully confirmed—that the petty proprietor, the small master (a social type existing on a very extensive and even mass scale in many European countries), who, under capitalism, always suffers oppression and very frequently a most acute and rapid deterioration in his conditions of life, and even ruin, easily goes to revolutionary extremes, but is incapable of perseverance, organisation, discipline and steadfastness. A petty bourgeois driven to frenzy by the horrors of capitalism is a social phenomenon which, like anarchism, is characteristic of all capitalist countries. The instability of such revolutionism, its barrenness, and its tendency to turn rapidly into submission, apathy, phantasms (my note: how is the revolution in Greece going by the way guys?), and even a frenzied infatuation with one bourgeois fad or another—all this is common knowledge. However, a theoretical or abstract recognition of these truths does not at all rid revolutionary parties of old errors, which always crop up at unexpected occasions, in somewhat new forms, in a hitherto unfamiliar garb or surroundings, in an unusual—a more or less unusual—situation...

When it came into being in 1903, Bolshevism took over the tradition of a ruthless struggle against petty-bourgeois, semi-anarchist (or dilettante-anarchist) revolutionism, a tradition which had always existed in revolutionary Social-Democracy and had become particularly strong in our country during the years 1900-03, when the foundations for a mass party of the revolutionary proletariat were being laid in Russia. Bolshevism took over and carried on the struggle against a party which, more than any other, expressed the tendencies of petty-bourgeois revolutionism, namely, the "Socialist-Revolutionary" Party, and waged that struggle on three main issues. First, that party, which rejected Marxism, stubbornly refused (or, it might be more correct to say: was unable) to understand the need for a strictly objective appraisal of the class forces and their alignment, before taking any political action. Second, this party considered itself particularly "revolutionary", or "Left", because of its recognition of individual terrorism, assassination—something that we Marxists emphatically rejected. It was, of course, only on grounds of expediency that we rejected individual terrorism, whereas people who were capable of condemning "on principle" the terror of the Great French Revolution, or, in general, the terror employed by a victorious revolutionary party which is besieged by the bourgeoisie of the whole world, were ridiculed and laughed to scorn by Plekhanov in 1900-03, when he was a Marxist and a revolutionary. Third, the "Socialist-Revolutionaries," thought it very "Left" to sneer at the comparatively insignificant opportunist sins of the German Social-Democratic Party, while they themselves imitated the extreme opportunists of that party, for example, on the agrarian question, or on the question of the dictatorship of the proletariat

[FSL]

2nd It's not complex or difficult to throw molotov, but it takes guts. It's easy to write about class struggle, about revolution, about riots etc. what's hard its to make something .


It takes stupidity, it takes ignoring people and their opinions, it takes climbing to the highest tower of a secluded castle and simply being satisfied with yourself. The people that were "indecent" enough to write about class struggle or revolution were the ones that ended up leading it when the workers were ready.

And ok,(because you're not showing you're worthy of any better arguments) want to see who has guts? There's a vid in the first post. See who's backing away.



It's not as clear cut as that though, the Anarchists were not being 'sectarian', the Anarchists wanted to do their action and allow PAME to do theirs, PAME refused to let the Anarchists through and physically stopped them from doing so, thus starting a confrontation.


If you are the least bit familiar with greek reality, then this will be an image all too common for you too. People moving out of a protesting crowd to start their own struggle against the state. A few molotovs are thrown, police is on the move, they retreat inside the crowd again. As tear gas spreads all over, the protest stops, everyone runs around like headless chickens and the "radicals with guts" that started the whole thing sprint to the closest university.
And if you are the least bit familiar with greek reality, you 'd know that there is no chance in hell this would ever be allowed to happen to a communist-led demonstration. They wanted to provoke and got what they had coming.

[Andropov]

1st I was making fun of your stupid qoute that anarchists will make riots, because we don't know anything else.
Link to where I said Anarchists dont know anything else but riot?

Funny thing is that you think that civil demo, which is allowed by the capitalist state is better than riots against capitalist state.
Case and point.
You assume because a civil demo is legal and a riot is illegal then a riot is more progressive.
Absolutely breath taking grasp of marxist analysis there.
It all depends on the context if and when to use those two different tactics.

I'm not claiming that I support riots made by Greek anarchists or that kind of strategy, but still I'm not making such assumptions (like you did) like you.
I made no assumption without some basis behind any conclusion.

Also, I have organised and took par in a lot of civil demos and I can tell you that demos will never achieve anything.
Yet again another indication of your grasp of Marxism.
As I pointed out to Patchd there are certain contexts when civil demos are more progressive and constructive than riots.

Of course, different situation means different tactics, but you can't forbid some one to protest just because he's an anarchist. We never forbid Marxsists-Leninists to join.
Like I pointed out here earlier that by rioting Anarchists are stopping the PAME demo.
It may be indirectly contributing to the cessation of the PAME protest but never the less the outcome is the same.

2nd It's not complex or difficult to throw molotov, but it takes guts. It's easy to write about class struggle, about revolution, about riots etc. what's hard its to make something .
A completely redundant point.
This is not about "guts".
This only further highlights your fetishisation of riots as something seemingly more than just a tactic.

3rd I'm not mocking to anybody who critiques something on political level, while you like to make your critiques on personal level. I don't see anything serious in your comment. Where's critique?
Funny how Patchd was able to engage with my posts in a constructive manner.
Perhaps when you get a grasp of Marxism you can interpret my critique.

You just made assumption that anarchist would riot.
Not at all, I came to that conclusion from Bulk sheep's post.

In general and in an authentic stalinist attitude, everyone who is not KKE/PAME is an opportunist enemy of the people, so PAME as a true cop of the movement, went and sealed off the entrance of the conference lot by going there and staying put, so that the Kamara blocks could not enter and they would not 'wreak havoc, cause police brutality and disperse the rally with tear gas and violence'.
When the Kamara block approached the entrance, they asked the PAME-ites to stand aside and let them pass, and they refused, so after a few verbal confrontations violence emerged.
So,to sum up:
Who the FUCK do they think they are? This disgusting behavior seems to stem off the Leninist vanguardism bullshit.IF you disagree with a certain way of protesting , you have no right to stop me from protesting in a way i see effective.
And not only this but we must also look at the context that the PAME find themselves in in Greece.
In this context Anarchists rioting is actually a fairly sound assumption to make.

Also, you put it like it's the worst thing that could ever happen.
Link to where I said it was the worst thing that could ever happen.

Only on who's emberesing himself is you. I don't have to remind you about your childish spamming of my profile,
Because I have no respect for you.
You are an ill-educated troll, certainly not a Marxist.

or about that discussion where you instead of making some point just blablabla you gave bad source...
Link to my "bad source"?

you know... you can answer to any source if you know shit.
I actually dont have a clue what that is ment to mean.

[Delenda Carthago]

Anyway,I think that this conversation is kind of meaningless.KKE is the strongest communist party in the western world,we do what we do and we do it well,let us handle our own differences on our own.To fight over two political movements in a country most of you never even been,its not productive.Stuff has to be done and spending time in here not doing that stuff is a waste of time and revolutionary energy.Only people who have lived in Greece know how this relationship between us really works,because we have a long history with "THE" party.

[Pogue]

I've heard from Greek Anarchists that the KKE is a sort of nationalist conservative faction these days similar to the Russian Communist Party. No doub tthe Anarchists see them as another institution of the state to be opposed. Either way, its hardly a suprising thing to see.

[black magick hustla]

The KKE is THE state. They are a fraction of the state, with its own people on congress.

[Thirsty Crow]

Such events are, in my eyes, tragic.
Revolutionary Spain happening all over again, as someone already mentioned.

[ls]

Such events are, in my eyes, tragic.
Revolutionary Spain happening all over again, as someone already mentioned.

But you support the international brigades amirite.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

In fact recently, even the class make-up of each tendency has become wildly different. In this country at least.
In that the Trots have a class make-up that it's possible to analyse, but you don't, because there's about three of you?


[Lengthy Lenin quotes]
You do realise that quoting scripture - sorry, Lenin - at someone who isn't a Leninist doesn't automatically make them think you're right, don't you?


Absolutely breath taking grasp of marxist analysis there...
Yet again another indication of your grasp of Marxism...
Perhaps when you get a grasp of Marxism you can interpret my critique...
...
You are an ill-educated troll, certainly not a Marxist.

Have ever considered that maybe Jurko isn't a Marxist and doesn't aspire to be one?

[Andropov]

Have ever considered that maybe Jurko isn't a Marxist and doesn't aspire to be one?
Is Marx irrelevant to Anarchists?

[The Ungovernable Farce]

Is Marx irrelevant to Anarchists?
Some are closer to Marx than others, but I think pretty much all think he had serious weaknesses and blind spots, for instance on the question of the state. Personally, as much as I'd like to accept Marxist historical determinism, I don't really think I can.

[Nosotros]

A mate of mine tells me that this happens all the time in eastern europe, I think it has something to do with Kronstadt. Typical of the far-left really.

[Thirsty Crow]

I've heard from Greek Anarchists that the KKE is a sort of nationalist conservative faction these days similar to the Russian Communist Party. No doub tthe Anarchists see them as another institution of the state to be opposed. Either way, its hardly a suprising thing to see.
I've heard the same, but not from declared anarchists, but people who declare themselves as revolutionary marxists. In fact, people I've spoken with foster a healthy critical attitude towards both KKE and the anarchists.

[Delenda Carthago]

A mate of mine tells me that this happens all the time in eastern europe, I think it has something to do with Kronstadt. Typical of the far-left really.

Buh-lieve me when I say,it has nothingto do with no...Kronstadt.That nowdays only concerns losers.Its fuckin 2010,who gives a shit about that?KKE has given 100 big reasons since Kronstandt to hate it.

[Spawn of Stalin]

In that the Trots have a class make-up that it's possible to analyse, but you don't, because there's about three of you?
Yeah there are only about three Marxist-Leninists. You are spot on, mate. Well done.

[FSL]

You do realise that quoting scripture - sorry, Lenin - at someone who isn't a Leninist doesn't automatically make them think you're right, don't you?



I was aiming at showing the consistency between theory and action. Had you bothered to read what I wrote you should be able to get as much.

And mocking books is very progressive. Not like they're useful, right?

[ls]

Dunno what the arguments going on about class-makeup and numbers of tendency groups over here are about, it is a fact that there are few MLs in the UK at the moment, I didn't even think that was up for discussion. Yeah OK so they are fairly active, then again the rest of the left is a lot more active than them in doing stuff, I've never really heard of the CPGB, CPGB-ML, the Stalin Society or any other smaller ML organisations doing anything other than holding meetings and attending a couple of protests per year since at least the mid 90s.

It's only if you count the trade unions movement as all ML (which isn't true a lot of it is trot and also you and trots are welcome to lay claim to it, 'ultra-leftists' associating and being in league with those like the CPB/RMT union bureaucracy is idiotic to say the least) that you can say you have any sizeable majority or even significant minority at all, over here.

[bailey_187]

Dunno what the arguments going on about class-makeup and numbers of tendency groups over here are about, it is a fact that there are few MLs in the UK at the moment, I didn't even think that was up for discussion. Yeah OK so they are fairly active, then again the rest of the left is a lot more active than them in doing stuff, I've never really heard of the CPGB, CPGB-ML, the Stalin Society or any other smaller ML organisations doing anything other than holding meetings and attending a couple of protests per year since at least the mid 90s.

It's only if you count the trade unions movement as all ML (which isn't true a lot of it is trot and also you and trots are welcome to lay claim to it, 'ultra-leftists' associating and being in league with those like the CPB/RMT union bureaucracy is idiotic to say the least) that you can say you have any sizeable majority or even significant minority at all, over here.

Well the RCG is active and organise their own protests, pickets etc
Also their paper is msot read political newspaper in prison.
But yeah there arent many MLists, but then there isnt many of any left ideology really.

What i think Motionless was getting at is that Marxist-Leninists are not usually bourgeois students in kiffyeh scarfs playing radical like many on the left are. Admitedly there are MLers ofbourgeois backround, but from what i seen (and probly what Motionless has seen) is its more common in other left ideologies.
I dont know about Anarchists and Left Communists though, i havent spoke to many of them.

[nuisance]

Shame the anarchos didn't bring no goodies to the bout.

[Pogue]

Well the RCG is active and organise their own protests, pickets etc
Also their paper is msot read political newspaper in prison.
But yeah there arent many MLists, but then there isnt many of any left ideology really.

What i think Motionless was getting at is that Marxist-Leninists are not usually bourgeois students in kiffyeh scarfs playing radical like many on the left are. Admitedly there are MLers ofbourgeois backround, but from what i seen (and probly what Motionless has seen) is its more common in other left ideologies.
I dont know about Anarchists and Left Communists though, i havent spoke to many of them.

I think that essentially there is a line running throughout all left factions of genuinely good working class militants, both in origin and action. You'd be an idiot to deny that the Socialist Party of England and Wales has alot of solid working class people in it, and they are Trots, alot of the old school Marxist-Leninists would too, the old union types, undoubtedly members of the ICC are working class and useful to the class, and I know various anarchist/libsoc organisations that have solid working class people too. But likewise there are some very obviously trendy types in all these circles, anarchism is famed for it, Trotskyism too, Marxism-Leninism has your Stalinkiddies and Chekiddies, no one is denying it, and middle class poseurs or general individualists/lifestylists are predominant everywhere.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

What i think Motionless was getting at is that Marxist-Leninists are not usually bourgeois students in kiffyeh scarfs playing radical like many on the left are. Admitedly there are MLers ofbourgeois backround, but from what i seen (and probly what Motionless has seen) is its more common in other left ideologies.
I dont know about Anarchists and Left Communists though, i havent spoke to many of them.

I don't think there is any evidence that I have seen to suggest that the ideology of Leninism has more working class people following it than any other ideology. I think each ideology has its fair share of middle class people.

[bailey_187]

Its just an observation from attending different groups meetings and at demos, events etc

I agree mostly with Pogues most so i wont bother replying to it.

[ReggaeCat]

Well...About the video...Anarchists that day had also started fighting witht the cops so it was very dangerous for the others to let em in...and it's like 90% that when in big numbers anarchists always start fights..
About the knat video...its another anticommunists propaganda from the free-open minded anarchists that in every demo they have like 3-4 chants(or whatever it's called) anticommunist while commies have none.
Also about the gulags that my dear anarchists said...what anarchists plan to do with criminals in an anarchist society since you are also anti prison???
Uhm...ill look for some vids to show you the other side of anarchists..

P.S I respect anarchism and anarchists as long as they do the same about socialism.

[Pogue]

Its just an observation from attending different groups meetings and at demos, events etc

I agree mostly with Pogues most so i wont bother replying to it.

Well theres no point taking that position, because most anarchists would say the same. Just as Christians argue over what denomination has the most righteous line, we argue over who is the most working class.

[ReggaeCat]

Demonstration Athens 2009 - 6th December





the mighty unafraid anarchos



2009 Athens Riots (December 6th and 7th)





why why the clash?because of this.

PS check the vids on ut i cant post links yet..:(

[ReggaeCat]

on the 2nd video check at 09:19 the fight with an old man...then you talk about pame bullying

[bcbm]

Also about the gulags that my dear anarchists said...what anarchists plan to do with criminals in an anarchist society since you are also anti prison???community support and rehabilitation for those who act anti-socially? just about anything else? the abolition of property and numerous other aspects of our current society would reduce crime rates substantially of course. i think any level of support for prison is obscene and supporters of prison calling themselves socialists should feel especially ashamed.

[Spawn of Stalin]

I don't think there is any evidence that I have seen to suggest that the ideology of Leninism has more working class people following it than any other ideology. I think each ideology has its fair share of middle class people.
I don't actually think that Marxism-Leninism has more working class people, to be honest I actually think anarchism, Trotskyism, and Marxism-Leninism all have a pretty similar number of working class followers. The point is that Marxism-Leninism isn't quite as visible or popular, the reason for this I think is simple, it doesn't tend to attract as many bourgeois kids. Say you go to a demo, there are one hundred Marxist-Leninists, two hundred anarchists, and three hundred Trots, in my experience it is likely that most of the excess anarchists and Trotskyists are just posers and lifestylists. Or, look at it this way, at most demos we march with the RCG and the Turkish MLKP, and we are usually one of the smaller blocs, but look at the class character of our bloc, working class, alright so there are a few middle class types but these are dedicated revolutionaries, and if they weren't dedicated revolutionaries they would not be allowed to join because the CPGB-ML, the RCG, and the MLKP all have strict membership policies, we don't let people join for the sake of joining, you're either in or you're out. The Trotskyist parties are not so strict, the SWP will let anyone join, all you need is a UK bank account and you can become a member join by clicking a few buttons on their website. Due to this the make-up of the SWP bloc at a demo is going to be far more diverse, everyone from Oxbridge students to dedicated working class cadres can be found here, the latter of which in terms of numbers is probably about the same size as our Marxist-Leninist bloc. Finally you have the anarchists, they don't have membership rules, they don't even have membership, theoretically anarchists should be more prone to having lifestylists among their ranks than Trotskyists, but I don't think this is the case at all, maybe because anarchists are more vigilant? Maybe because people are attracted to the popularity of the SWP, and campaigns like Stop the War and Unite Against Fascism. With that said anarchism definitely attracts its fair share of people who don't have a clue what they are supposed to stand for, and if they did know they probably wouldn't want anything to do with it, they are just young kids who are attracted to the idea of "anarchy" because it is the ultimate in rebellious ideologies. I really think this is a shame because I was actually raised an anarchist in a family with a very strong left-wing tradition, I don't have anything against anarchists at all and I think that their intentions are admirable, but I must stress the difference between anarchists who want Communism, and "anarchists" who just want to dress up in black and break shit on the street. So Trotskyism and anarchism don't necessarily have less proletarian revolutionaries amongst them, but it is almost certainly the case that they do have more bourgeois idiots.

[ReggaeCat]

Prisons ....How are you so sure that in an anarchist society there will be absolutely criminaals....and what if there is....i mean...who and how will punish or try to stop it?Im not talking about theft(which can also happen) but murdering,beating for different reasons,drugs,bullying and stuff...(cant actually write in english what i excatly want to say but i think you got the point

[ReggaeCat]

I don't actually think that Marxism-Leninism has more working class people, to be honest I actually think anarchism, Trotskyism, and Marxism-Leninism all have a pretty similar number of working class followers. The point is that Marxism-Leninism isn't quite as visible or popular, the reason for this I think is simple, it doesn't tend to attract as many bourgeois kids. Say you go to a demo, there are one hundred Marxist-Leninists, two hundred anarchists, and three hundred Trots, in my experience it is likely that most of the excess anarchists and Trotskyists are just posers and lifestylists. Or, look at it this way, at most demos we march with the RCG and the Turkish MLKP, and we are usually one of the smaller blocs, but look at the class character of our bloc, working class, alright so there are a few middle class types but these are dedicated revolutionaries, and if they weren't dedicated revolutionaries they would not be allowed to join because the CPGB-ML, the RCG, and the MLKP all have strict membership policies, we don't let people join for the sake of joining, you're either in or you're out. The Trotskyist parties are not so strict, the SWP will let anyone join, all you need is a UK bank account and you can become a member join by clicking a few buttons on their website. Due to this the make-up of the SWP bloc at a demo is going to be far more diverse, everyone from Oxbridge students to dedicated working class cadres can be found here, the latter of which in terms of numbers is probably about the same size as our Marxist-Leninist bloc. Finally you have the anarchists, they don't have membership rules, they don't even have membership, theoretically anarchists should be more prone to having lifestylists among their ranks than Trotskyists, but I don't think this is the case at all, maybe because anarchists are more vigilant? Maybe because people are attracted to the popularity of the SWP, and campaigns like Stop the War and Unite Against Fascism. With that said anarchism definitely attracts its fair share of people who don't have a clue what they are supposed to stand for, and if they did know they probably wouldn't want anything to do with it, they are just young kids who are attracted to the idea of "anarchy" because it is the ultimate in rebellious ideologies. I really think this is a shame because I was actually raised an anarchist in a family with a very strong left-wing tradition, I don't have anything against anarchists at all and I think that their intentions are admirable, but I must stress the difference between anarchists who want Communism, and "anarchists" who just want to dress up in black and break shit on the street. So Trotskyism and anarchism don't necessarily have less proletarian revolutionaries amongst them, but it is almost certainly the case that they do have more bourgeois idiots.


to talk about greece there are also kids want to play the rebel role who join the youth of kke and i have plenty examples of kids being capitalists at it's worst case and that have been in the youth of the communist party

[bcbm]

Prisons ....How are you so sure that in an anarchist society there will be absolutely criminaals....and what if there is....i mean...who and how will punish or try to stop it?Im not talking about theft(which can also happen) but murdering,beating for different reasons,drugs,bullying and stuff...(cant actually write in english what i excatly want to say but i think you got the point

i never said there wouldn't be anti-social behavior, but merely that it would be vastly reduced and what does occur can be dealt with in communities through some sort of support and rehabilitation network. none of the problems you mention are solved by prison. if anything, most of them are made worse because prison is a harmful environment for everyone involved.

[ReggaeCat]

most of the cases are solved by prison....some are not but the some are the ones who get medi coverage so we think that prison is a bad place(also we talking about a good imprisonment system not like most of the prisons today right?).
What if the "some sort of support and rehabilitation network." doesnt work?

[bcbm]

i don't think there is such a thing as a good prison, because the prison exists only to punish through the removal of freedom, an act which doesn't solve anything. i don't know why you would say most cases are solved by prisons. prisons encourage the expansion of criminal networks and repeat offenders. they also provide the police with a continual source of snitches and liars, a problem for obvious reasons. i think a more human society could achieve more human solutions to our problems than throwing people in cages. if one method doesn't work, another can be tried, but i think it will have more success than prison.

[PRC-UTE]

Funny thing is that labelling of anarchists as peti-bourgeoisie came from Engels critique of Proudhon, who by the way, has nothing to do with majority of anarchists today and in the 20th century (for example what does anarcho-syndicalism have in common with Proudhon?!) .

Ideas come from somewhere. The preference for de-centralised over centralised, local forms or organising over national ones, and stressing individual liberty over discipline did not emerge from the workers' movement. They emerged historically from the petit bourgeoisie who were being squeezed by modernisation in economics and society that reduced their privilged role in production and social life. One can easily find historical examples of anarchists courting the petit bourgeoisie as its support base and social layer- the Ukrainian anarchists for instance. Once the NEP was implemented, the anarchist support base in the Ukraine melted away, because it satisfied their class interests.

[ReggaeCat]

i say that cause i know people that had been in prison and came later a different man...also i said we're talking about an ideal prison.Also people in prison have time to think about what they did so they can change.
I support prisons since i cannot think any other method of keepin anti-social behaviour out of society for a while and give them time to think.

[bcbm]

i don't think your personal experience with a few prisoners is a sufficient argument against the evidence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recidivism#Statistics) suggesting otherwise.

what is an ideal prison?

people who engage in anti-social behaviors don't need to be banished from society and stripped of their humanity, they need to be helped so that they can live within the community as they please and have a full life.

[ReggaeCat]

Could you please show me the evidence wich says that people who get in prisons when they get out the become worse.An ideal prison is a prison where you actually are away form society for an amount of time so you think about you done and when you get out you wont be a criminal.Also the guards and stuff are not like today.The food,hygiene and all that stuff also will not be like it is now.That's what i think of ideal prison.Again are there some tested methods wich show results in helping criminals???

[Ovi]

What a surprise! I have yet to hear of any anarchist supporting stalinists the same way I don't know any anarchist supporting Monsanto or the nazis. They're all like 2 peas in a pod!

[ReggaeCat]

What a surprise! I have yet to hear of any anarchist supporting stalinists the same way I don't know any anarchist supporting Monsanto or the nazis. They're all like 2 peas in a pod!


If you compare nazis with stalin then you have to read some books

[Искра]

One can easily find historical examples of anarchists courting the petit bourgeoisie as its support base and social layer- the Ukrainian anarchists for instance. Once the NEP was implemented, the anarchist support base in the Ukraine melted away, because it satisfied their class interests.
What a fuck are you talking about?!
MAJORITY of anarchists from Ukraine were peasants.
NEP was the reason for people stop declaring themselves as anarchists? Haven't you heard for Trotsky the back stabber and the machine guns?

[Rusty Shackleford]

what a fucking waste of time. this is one of the reasons i have not decided to stick with any tendency yet. i remain on the left but this dissapoints me greatly.

[ls]

Ideas come from somewhere. The preference for de-centralised over centralised, local forms or organising over national ones

What do you mean local over national? They do both, as can be observed in Spain and in Ukraine. Both is better than just national.


and stressing individual liberty over discipline did not emerge from the workers' movement

There isn't a particular trend to do this any more than any other ideology.


One can easily find historical examples of anarchists courting the petit bourgeoisie as its support base and social layer- the Ukrainian anarchists for instance. Once the NEP was implemented, the anarchist support base in the Ukraine melted away, because it satisfied their class interests.

That's not actually true at all, it was thanks to constant destruction of everything they worked for in Ukraine. A nice way of repaying them back for all they did. Landless peasants are not 'petit-bourgeois'.


The point is that Marxism-Leninism isn't quite as visible or popular, the reason for this I think is simple, it doesn't tend to attract as many bourgeois kids.

There are plenty of middle-class Maoist kids even in this country. The RCG has quite a few workers though yeah, I knew some guy who used to be RCG but turned anarchist a couple of years ago who said it had some decent people in it.


Or, look at it this way, at most demos we march with the RCG and the Turkish MLKP, and we are usually one of the smaller blocs, but look at the class character of our bloc, working class, alright so there are a few middle class types but these are dedicated revolutionaries

Doesn't your head and the founder of the party, Harpal Brar own this business (http://www.trehearneandbrar.com/)? I'm not saying that others like that do not exist in AFed or whatever other groups, but still it seems prudent to check these things, also there are quite a lot of middle-class people in your bloc from what I've seen, no more or less than some of the other non-SWP Trot groups in fairness.


and if they weren't dedicated revolutionaries they would not be allowed to join because the CPGB-ML, the RCG, and the MLKP all have strict membership policies, we don't let people join for the sake of joining, you're either in or you're out.

That's still ambiguous. What are the membership policies?


Finally you have the anarchists, they don't have membership rules, they don't even have membership, theoretically anarchists should be more prone to having lifestylists among their ranks than Trotskyists, but I don't think this is the case at all, maybe because anarchists are more vigilant? Maybe because people are attracted to the popularity of the SWP, and campaigns like Stop the War and Unite Against Fascism. With that said anarchism definitely attracts its fair share of people who don't have a clue what they are supposed to stand for, and if they did know they probably wouldn't want anything to do with it, they are just young kids who are attracted to the idea of "anarchy" because it is the ultimate in rebellious ideologies. I really think this is a shame because I was actually raised an anarchist in a family with a very strong left-wing tradition, I don't have anything against anarchists at all and I think that their intentions are admirable, but I must stress the difference between anarchists who want Communism, and "anarchists" who just want to dress up in black and break shit on the street.

I think people in AFed, the local anarchist groups from around the UK, L&S and in LCAP as well as other groups are oftentimes not just "anyone who decided to join in the fun", AFed have decent membership rules and you will find they have big blocs at many demos. The other local groups may not have membership rules, but I can guarantee that they can be more scathing to people who they do not think fit the bill than probably your party can be - they aren't just "anyone can join" in at all seeing as the quality of the work they do attracts the right people.

The poser types who stand around at anarchist things are usually (I would say 80% of the time) affiliated to something entirely non-anarchist organisation-wise, I know this because I've asked people who I wondered about - they just seemed incredibly out of place. They also seem out of place to to most anarchists, trust me on this most anarchists as well as myself can spot the difference a mile away and it usually leads to little conversation between that person and others in some kind of anarcho bloc, trust me on this it's usually just them and their own friends speaking.. :p


So Trotskyism and anarchism don't necessarily have less proletarian revolutionaries amongst them, but it is almost certainly the case that they do have more bourgeois idiots.

There is absolutely no way to qualitatively measure this, I would say it is about the same tendency-wise in terms of what actual tendency'd people exist in this country, most of whom let's be honest - do not actually attend demos and are not that active.

Organisation wise? Those such as AFed and L&S have less than an 8th of middle-class people, I definitely believe that. The local anarcho groups only have about a group of 7 or so out of about 100 at most in my experience (in terms of each group - each of which vary in size but are usually around 100-150 strong each at demos, with around 12 of them groups generally attending the big demos for certain).

[Ovi]

If you compare nazis with stalin then you have to read some books
Imperialism, ethnic cleansing, political prisons, complete control of the media, economy and people's lives by a ruling minority (just like today), arresting and shooting anyone who has a different opinion, socialists included (any regime that kills its socialists is a bourgeois regime if you ask me)...Soviet union, USA or whatever, same thing, different masters.

[Sasha]

if lenin and co where already this nice:
Chemical weapons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_weapons) were used "from end of June 1921 until apparently the fall of 1921 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1921)", by direct order from leadership of Red Army (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army) and Communist party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolshevik) [4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tambov_Rebellion#cite_note-Sennikov-3) Publications in local Communist newspapers openly glorified liquidations of "bandits" with the poison gas [4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tambov_Rebellion#cite_note-Sennikov-3)
Seven Concentration camps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_camp) were set up. At least 50,000 people were interned, mostly women, children, and elderly, some of them were sent there as hostages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostage). The mortality rate in the camps was 15-20 percent a month.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tambov_Rebellion#cite_note-black_book-1)
The uprising was gradually quelled in 1921. Antonov was killed in 1922 during an attempt to arrest him. Total losses among the population of Tambov region in 1920-1922 resulting from the war, executions, and imprisonment in concentration camps were estimated as at least 240,000 [4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tambov_Rebellion#cite_note-Sennikov-3).

i'm not burning my fingers how it went two years later under stalin.

[ReggaeCat]

Imperialism, ethnic cleansing, political prisons, complete control of the media, economy and people's lives by a ruling minority (just like today), arresting and shooting anyone who has a different opinion, socialists included (any regime that kills its socialists is a bourgeois regime if you ask me)...Soviet union, USA or whatever, same thing, different masters.


well just another amateur antistalinist....please make me a favor and hook me up some proofs..

[Ovi]

well just another amateur antistalinist....please make me a favor and hook me up some proofs..
Proof? You mean the soviet invasion of eastern europe, the gulags, the deportations, the NKVD and the persecution of anarchists in the soviet union is news to you?
And what's with the surprise when someone finds out that stalinists and anarchist don't go along to well? I don't find it sad at all, quite on the contrary.

[Spawn of Stalin]

Doesn't your head and the founder of the party, Harpal Brar own this business (http://www.trehearneandbrar.com/)? I'm not saying that others like that do not exist in AFed or whatever other groups, but still it seems prudent to check these things, also there are quite a lot of middle-class people in your bloc from what I've seen, no more or less than some of the other non-SWP Trot groups in fairness.
Yes, Harpal is a businessman, no he is not a proletarian, but, he is a dedicated revolutionary who heads a cadre party. With a handful of exceptions all of our members are workers, retired workers, or working class students. We don't all work in factories and mines, we have a couple of doctors, someone who works at the BBC, a professor of economics, well paid jobs but that doesn't necessarily make these people privileged. As far as I'm concerned they are working people and that's all that matters.

That's still ambiguous. What are the membership policies?
Well, for starters we insist on meeting potential members for a discussion before handing them a party card and taking their bank details. Although a simple measure, this goes a long way as far as finding out who is serious about being a revolutionary and who is not, for starters, someone who isn't serious probably won't want to meet us anyway. If you've visited our website you may have noticed that we don't take online membership applications, our email address is up there, but if you want to join you're going to have to meet us because the only membership forms we have are made out of paper.

Our candidacy period is six months, if someone you're not active, if you're not putting in as much time as you should, if you don't take the Party seriously, if you don't agree with our aims and goals, then you're not going to become a full member, simple as that. If, once you become a full member, you don't take party in our work, we're going to expel you, simple as that. Our handbook states that every member "shall place his/her whole time and strength in so far as he/she can him/herself dispose of them under existing conditions at the disposal of the party", from this it is pretty obvious that a lifestylist student would not be welcome in our party. These rules are nothing special, thinking about it, actually a lot of parties have similar rules, but anarchists don't, and some of the larger Trotskyist groups don't. This rule is not in place to keep members active, after all someone is only worth having as a member if they are going to be as active as possible, it was actually meant to keep the bad ones out of our organisation.

Finally, this isn't a membership rule as such, but look at us as a party, we run a campaign called Hands off China, we're associated with the Stalin Society, we run articles in our paper defending Zimbabwe, North Korea, and Iran, so it's not as if any lifestylists would want to join us even if they could. To become a member you need to agree with our programme, and that doesn't mean just reading it then going "yeah, okay", that means really agreeing with it, understanding it, being able to answer questions relating to it, everything. Since we place such a large emphasis on educating out members we would soon find out if someone did not fully agree with or understand our position as a party.

I think people in AFed, the local anarchist groups from around the UK, L&S and in LCAP as well as other groups are oftentimes not just "anyone who decided to join in the fun", AFed have decent membership rules and you will find they have big blocs at many demos. The other local groups may not have membership rules, but I can guarantee that they can be more scathing to people who they do not think fit the bill than probably your party can be - they aren't just "anyone can join" in at all seeing as the quality of the work they do attracts the right people.

The poser types who stand around at anarchist things are usually (I would say 80% of the time) affiliated to something entirely non-anarchist organisation-wise, I know this because I've asked people who I wondered about - they just seemed incredibly out of place. They also seem out of place to to most anarchists, trust me on this most anarchists as well as myself can spot the difference a mile away and it usually leads to little conversation between that person and others in some kind of anarcho bloc, trust me on this it's usually just them and their own friends speaking.. :p

There is absolutely no way to qualitatively measure this, I would say it is about the same tendency-wise in terms of what actual tendency'd people exist in this country, most of whom let's be honest - do not actually attend demos and are not that active.

Organisation wise? Those such as AFed and L&S have less than an 8th of middle-class people, I definitely believe that. The local anarcho groups only have about a group of 7 or so out of about 100 at most in my experience (in terms of each group - each of which vary in size but are usually around 100-150 strong each at demos, with around 12 of them groups generally attending the big demos for certain).
No, I agree completely, I think I have been misunderstood somewhat. The anarchist organisations you mentioned all have a solid working class membership, and serious anarchists usually end up joining such a group. What I was referring to was "anarchists" who are not members of groups, they just show up at demos dressed in black, sometimes with a big flag on a stick, I think that if it were not for these people, the anarchist bloc at any given demo would be quite a lot smaller. Look at the G20 action earlier on in the year, I was watching the BBC coverage at a friend's place and she was amazed, she said she had no idea that there were so many anarchists in this country, "there aren't", I replied. Actually I wish there was some way of measuring it but unfortunately rooting out the fakes would be a real challenge.

[ReggaeCat]

Proof? You mean the soviet invasion of eastern europe, the gulags, the deportations, the NKVD and the persecution of anarchists in the soviet union is news to you?
And what's with the surprise when someone finds out that stalinists and anarchist don't go along to well? I don't find it sad at all, quite on the contrary.


proof that all this happened...wich eastern europe invasion are you talking about?still you could add the lenin's letter of not wanting stalin in the leadership,add the ribendrof-molotov treaty,add the killing of kulaks,add also the ukranian holocaust/famine (you chose) add the killing of trotsky,buharin,zinovief-kamenef,add the violent collectivisation...i mean there are so much things you could say about stalin...bring it on...(that's why i said about the amateur..it's not news...its like everytime the same.):laugh::laugh::laugh: Also check the bbc documentaries about stalin...really good source about an antistalinist.:laugh::laugh::laugh:

[bcbm]

Could you please show me the evidence wich says that people who get in prisons when they get out the become worse.

who said anything about worse? i already linked to evidence showing that those who go to prison have a very high rate of returning to prison once they're let out.


An ideal prison is a prison where you actually are away form society for an amount of time so you think about you done and when you get out you wont be a criminal.

how does putting a bunch of anti-social individuals together in a restrictive space encourage self-reflection or allow one to integrate into one's society? to me it seems more likely that it will encourage feelings of isolation and rage, as well as form bonds between anti-social individuals that strengthen and reinforce their mindset.


Also the guards and stuff are not like today.The food,hygiene and all that stuff also will not be like it is now.That's what i think of ideal prison.Again are there some tested methods wich show results in helping criminals???

given the strength of the prison industry, there aren't many tested alternatives, no. but as i understand the evidence that does exists, the more connection with the outside, freedom and dignity afforded to prisoners, the better the results.

[ls]

Yes, Harpal is a businessman, no he is not a proletarian, but, he is a dedicated revolutionary who heads a cadre party. With a handful of exceptions all of our members are workers, retired workers, or working class students. We don't all work in factories and mines, we have a couple of doctors, someone who works at the BBC, a professor of economics, well paid jobs but that doesn't necessarily make these people privileged. As far as I'm concerned they are working people and that's all that matters.

You can work in a very high paid job indeed and still be a worker, being a doctor for instance doesn't necessarily make you petit-bourgeois by any means nowdays, working for the BBC depends on what you do - journalists are technically workers but it depends on what they actually do in their job's capacity - many are reactionary, being a professor of economics is fine even as a teacher as long as she or he tries to nuance the capitalist economics with others. But to be fair, owning basically any kind of business and indeed being self-employed about 70% of the time (exceptions such as those of tube cleaners who are forced to go self-employed and stuff like that, basically a waged job without all the rights are fairly common and yeah obviously they are workers) means that the person is not really a worker, it can't be doubted that there is a qualitative and real difference here that cannot be ignored.


Well, for starters we insist on meeting potential members for a discussion before handing them a party card and taking their bank details. Although a simple measure, this goes a long way as far as finding out who is serious about being a revolutionary and who is not, for starters, someone who isn't serious probably won't want to meet us anyway. If you've visited our website you may have noticed that we don't take online membership applications, our email address is up there, but if you want to join you're going to have to meet us because the only membership forms we have are made out of paper.

Our candidacy period is six months, if someone you're not active, if you're not putting in as much time as you should, if you don't take the Party seriously, if you don't agree with our aims and goals, then you're not going to become a full member, simple as that. If, once you become a full member, you don't take party in our work, we're going to expel you, simple as that. Our handbook states that every member "shall place his/her whole time and strength in so far as he/she can him/herself dispose of them under existing conditions at the disposal of the party", from this it is pretty obvious that a lifestylist student would not be welcome in our party.

Fair enough, I can't really say anything too bad about any of that.


These rules are nothing special, thinking about it, actually a lot of parties have similar rules, but anarchists don't, and some of the larger Trotskyist groups don't. This rule is not in place to keep members active, after all someone is only worth having as a member if they are going to be as active as possible, it was actually meant to keep the bad ones out of our organisation.

Indeed, I don't think your saying that anarchists "don't" do this is true at all, indeed some people who can only give part of their time might be excluded if you just kicked them out. In the end of the day, I've felt pressure before for not doing this and that because I've had other things to do by an anarchistic community group and it's not that nice.

To have that constitutionalised in a party saying "as much as you can" is fair enough only insofar as it is actually enforced, saying to people that you must be active now straight away then it could turn people away who may be unable to be active immediately..

AFed and L&S are certainly not "open memberships", they too require you to meet with people and you can see that from their sites, LCAP and most of the local community ones only let you get involved insofar as you get involved really, other than that it's just an open mailing list, should people be excluded because they can only turn up to some things? I don't think every organisation should be expected to act like a party, community groups' function is not to act like a party after all.


they just show up at demos dressed in black, sometimes with a big flag on a stick, I think that if it were not for these people, the anarchist bloc at any given demo would be quite a lot smaller.

I don't see any reason why. The common anarchist groups have large numbers, at the pre-g20 demo did you not see the massive congregation of anarchists in Hyde Park's speaker's corner? I am telling you now that there were 1,500+ people there, by that time much of the non-anarchist posers had melted away, trust me. I really don't think your characterisation here is right at all.


Look at the G20 action earlier on in the year, I was watching the BBC coverage at a friend's place and she was amazed, she said she had no idea that there were so many anarchists in this country, "there aren't", I replied. Actually I wish there was some way of measuring it but unfortunately rooting out the fakes would be a real challenge.

The G20 was a complete mess, there is no reason to think that many of them at that particular one were not agent provocateurs sent in by police, I've heard reports some of them even crossed police lines.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

Yes, Harpal is a businessman, no he is not a proletarian, but, he is a dedicated revolutionary who heads a cadre party. With a handful of exceptions all of our members are workers, retired workers, or working class students.
Is it not a bad idea for him to be the actual head of the party, though? If there are so many proletarians in the party, why couldn't one of them be the leader, and the businessman could play more of a rank and file role?

I don't see any reason why. The common anarchist groups have large numbers, at the pre-g20 demo did you not see the massive congregation of anarchists in Hyde Park's speaker's corner? I am telling you now that there were 1,500+ people there, by that time much of the non-anarchist posers had melted away, trust me. I really don't think your characterisation here is right at all.

Yep - the King Blues were playing over in another part of the field and had all the lifestylists listening to them (no disrespect for the King Blues, I quite like them and appreciate the fact that they bothered marching in the first place) so the rally was just people who actually wanted to talk about revolutionary anarchism. I dunno if it was 1,500+, though.

[ls]

Yep - the King Blues were playing over in another part of the field and had all the lifestylists listening to them (no disrespect for the King Blues, I quite like them and appreciate the fact that they bothered marching in the first place) so the rally was just people who actually wanted to talk about revolutionary anarchism. I dunno if it was 1,500+, though.

You're probably right about the numbers but I think it was at least in slight excess of 1,000, they were pretty much all-anarchist or otherwise 'ultra-leftist' people hanging around speaker's corner and not just huddled around the actual speakin bit itself either. Also the lifestylists around king blues were hilarious :lol: I tihnk there was one wearing a cowboy hat as well haha.

[ReggaeCat]

what's wrong with cowboy hats???SOUth will rise again...xD..yep i hate america's government but i damn love the south...:wub::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolley es:

[Red Saxon]

I was in Paris last April and I managed to be there just in time to walk into a labor/capitalism protest. I saw some anarcho-socialists actually punch a guy in the face waving an anarcho-capitalist flag.

I was sitting in a cafe at the time, laughing my ass off as the two other people I was with sat there and wondered what the hell I was laughing at.

[Spawn of Stalin]

Is it not a bad idea for him to be the actual head of the party, though? If there are so many proletarians in the party, why couldn't one of them be the leader, and the businessman could play more of a rank and file role?
Because the Chairman is elected democratically and we're not going to deny someone the right to stand for election on the grounds that they have a bunch of money, all members have the right to stand as a candidate for any position in the Party, if we think someone is good enough to be a member, we think they are good enough to be given the opportunity to become Chairman, we are a party of equals and everyone is treated the same regardless of how big or small their bank account may be, if this wasn't the case I would leave the Party. Other parties are dominated both internally and externally by people like Robert Griffiths and Mike Gonzalez, we're not. If Harpal was a franchise owner or something like that then it would be a different story and I would agree completely that he wouldn't be the best person to take a leading role, but he doesn't, he has a business and his funds actually help serve the cause of Marxism-Leninism. It is unfortunate that this has to be the case but as a small and also a new party we don't have much of a choice, no high-profile members, no state supported front groups, etc. It's not like Harpal founded the Party just for self-satisfaction either, this country was desperately in need of a genuine anti-revisionist party, someone had to heed the call, it just happened to be someone with enough money to get things off the ground, I see this as a positive thing. If he is the best man for the job then he is the best man for the job, I think it would be stupid to select someone less suited to the role of Chairman just so that we could look more working class, anyone who has been to any of our meetings knows that we are working class. There are others in the Party who are proletarians who could probably do the job well and the CC is predominantly working class, but I do think Harpal is the best choice.

Also I think we should be clear on what Harpal actually does, that is, imports clothing from India and sells it to the Indian community in Britain, he doesn't own factories, he doesn't buy labour, he fills a gap in the market, this is actually a necessary role and if he didn't do it then someone else would and it is highly unlikely that that person would have good financial intentions, it would probably be some capitalist who would spend all of his or her money on flash cars and new new business acquisitions. But then unlike a lot of leftists I don't actually think it is wrong to make money, and that it depends on how you do it, I could come on here tomorrow and announce that I had won the Lottery, I'd probably take a lot of flak for it and might even find myself restricted, but I still play the Lottery because I know that if I was a millionaire I would be able to do a lot for what I believe it, and frankly I'm sick of being poor. Some people think that to be a Communist is to be as downtrodden as you can possibly be, I don't, I think it is to do everything in your power to achieve Communism, if a wealthy person wants to help us do that then they are more than welcome to do so, and as long as that is what you really hope for, then you are almost certainly one of the good guys.

[Black Sheep]

I sense some major derailment right here.

[Black Sheep]

According to a Greek anarchist friend of mine, the KKE is a very reformist organization that is firmly entrenched into the political establishment. Also, they're not so much "Stalinist" as they are old pro-Moscow dinosaurs- a political trend that is notorious for bullying or suffocating more revolutionary currents in their respective countries (think the PCF in France).

The Communist Organization of Greece seems pretty cool, I will admit.
They call KKE reformist, because it is extremely centralised, participates in elections (and focuses a lot), neglects and looks down upon the non-parliamentary left, the ultra left and the anarchist movement as opportunist garbage.
Also in Dec 08, its GC made the statement that ' in the authentic proletarian revolution, there wont even be a window broken' which was many times misquoted to exaggeration and out of context, but did pass a splendid stalinist sentiment and meaning.I guess the windows would be shattered after the revolution, when the secret police would arrest non CP leftists, anarchists etc. :rolleyes:


Also, they're not so much "Stalinist" as they are old pro-Moscow dinosaurs- a political trend that is notorious for bullying or suffocating more revolutionary currents in their respective countries (think the PCF in France).

Nah, i guess they are the role model of a modern stalinist party.In the last conference of the party, Stalin was redeemed ( 99,7% hurray for pluralism and free creative thinking, huh?)

In general the thorn in KKE's reputation is its policy of no cooperation with other forces.It has a front proposal, but stalinists as they are, they are condemned to loneliness.On top of that, they march seperately from the General Confederation of Workers (there is only 1 in greece), a thing which i think is unique, and i'd like to know if any other parties do that.



The Communist Organization of Greece seems pretty cool, I will admit.
Whoa, really? Why is that?
They are stalino-maoists, and take part in SYRIZA, a coalition of 10+ parties, ranging from soc-democrats,trotskyists,stalinists,maoists,radical and non radical ecologists, centrists, etc. Hu-fucking-rray.