Everybody is imperialist and bourgeois except for themselves?

[GracchusBabeuf]

.

[ZeroNowhere]

how do they know for sure that they are not taking sides in inter-imperialist conflicts? Because they're left communists.

[Charles Xavier]

blank

[Muzk]

Left communists have a history of being idiots, dating back to the first one. Their objective is to attack progressive movements with undue criticism that are learned from Sloganeering and not deep analysis. They condemn everything and have no solution. Criticism without a solution is useless and idiotic. If communists around the world are making huge mistakes, what would the left communists do differently? Their silence on this question is condemning of themselves.

Oh the irony...

[LeninistKing]

My friend, there is no absolute truths in this world. Nobody in this world knows the 100% truths, or has 100% truths and facts. What i mean is that this world is complicated and the structures of economic and political power are complicated, corrupt and the real world of politics is full of passions, evil and corruption. The problem with the ultra-left (Left communists) is that they are anti-realism. they think that the world could be changed to perfect-communism by decree or by magic. And thats why they hate the left-leaning social-democrat governments of Latin America, because those governments are not 100% workers-states, so according to the ultra-left Rafael Correa and Chavez are traitors and stalinists.

But from my own point of view it is impossible to pass a judgement against Hugo Chavez because the world is too complicated and corrupt, and its real real hard to change a country from capitalism to socialism.

People are scared, most workers are too scared to be socialists, to be united, and to protest. In a world of scared weak people its almost impossible for workers to overthrow the capitalist system or for populist-reformist leaders like Hugo Chavez and Rafael Correa to completely overthrow the capitalist system.

Another point that is against the left-forces in this world, and another point that i want to convey is that capitalists have more money than the left, and money is power and power is money. Like Tony Montana in Scarface said: "First you gotta get the money, after the money comes the power, and after the power comes the girl."

Without power, without political power, and without money, the left is completely weak and unable to overthrow the monstrous super-strong forces of corporate capitalist power in most nations.

.

.

,


Some questions: How valid is this claim by left communists? When the all countries and the entire planet are pervaded by imperialism and capitalism (according to them), what makes them so special as to not be a part of the "left wing of capital" and how do they know for sure that they are not taking sides in inter-imperialist conflicts?

[Red Commissar]

Well, we just won't be "revolutionaries" if we weren't calling the others imperialist and petty-bourgeois.

:laugh:

[Bright Banana Beard]

Apparently, all party are bourgeois apparatus.

When we don't control means of production, we are still bourgeois apparatus to them.

In short, they are dogmatic and pretends to know all shit than anyone else. If anything is not similar to Russia Revolution of 1917, it is not revolution. For many of us, it is a trial and error, for them it is IS or NOT.

[Muzk]

blabla


You're pretty dogmatic on your views of left-communists:rolleyes:

You havn't achieved a thing other than putting some beaurocracies in place where there were capitalists - which then, later restored capitalism. This shit can't happen to left communists. Then you try to excuse the restoration of capitalism with stuff like "there's no other way!", while the ones criticizing you are left behind as revisionists and counter revolutionaries...

[black magick hustla]

actually, you dont have to be a "left communist". the minimum benchmark to be outside the left wing of capital is to be an internationalist and not call workers for the defense of the nation state. an idea, by the way, that many left communists died for and got shot for. of course, the stalinist anti-imperialism was so favorable, especially when people who call themselves communists ended in thiose countries up against the wall and we got a new generation of worker friendly amin idis, mugabes, and mobutus :rolleyes:

[black magick hustla]

Left communists have a history of being idiots, dating back to the first one. Their objective is to attack progressive movements with undue criticism that are learned from Sloganeering and not deep analysis. They condemn everything and have no solution. Criticism without a solution is useless and idiotic. If communists around the world are making huge mistakes, what would the left communists do differently? Their silence on this question is condemning of themselves.

so i am sure you have a solution for all the problems of the world. a kid with a username "charles xavier" and a penchant for posting people's pictures and making chit chat troll threads. :rolleyes:

[Bright Banana Beard]

You havn't achieved a thing other than putting some beaurocracies in place where there were capitalists - which then, later restored capitalism. This shit can't happen to left communists. Then you try to excuse the restoration of capitalism with stuff like "there's no other way!", while the ones criticizing you are left behind as revisionists and counter revolutionaries...

You even can't spell bureaucracies right.
It happens to left communist, the great example is Italy and Germany, they refuse to pretend there is external threat that Marx did not told them.

And we does criticize the restoration of capitalism, there is Mao, Hoxha, and tons of marxist-leninists criticizing it, but then you point out their states already become capitalism. Let me tell you one thing, they didn't live to see their states to become capitalist. There is many way, but the internet users can change the structure of the USSR?

But it okay! Speak ill of the dead, all those workers and bureaucrats, because they are simple maintaining to restore capitalism in their states!

[Bright Banana Beard]

not call workers for the defense of the nation state

No one call for the defense of the nation state, but to takeover and put DotP themselves while helping out other workers to put DotP.

Waving the flag doesn't mean defense of the nation state, sorry to tell you.

[Muzk]

You even can't spell bureaucracies right.
Congratulations, have a cookie


And we does criticize the restoration of capitalism, there is Mao, who let the capitalists live and even rise to greater power than ever before, Hoxha, who lost all his "achievements" to neo liberal counter revolution and tons of marxist-leninists criticizing it, like trots, but you tend to let them work in sibiria...
Stalin already had state capitalism in place, Mao and Hoxha too; give me just one reason why they didn't, some kind of document we could trust, maybe some publications about the bureaocrats wages? Fuck the spelling btw, learning bourgeoise was hard for me already, and your grammar ain't very good either

But it okay! Speak ill of the dead, all those workers and bureaucrats, because they are simple maintaining to restore capitalism in their states!

[black magick hustla]

No one call for the defense of the nation state, but to takeover and put DotP themselves while helping out other workers to put DotP.

Waving the flag doesn't mean defense of the nation state, sorry to tell you.
:shrugs: anybody who calls workers to fight for a nation-state, regardless if there is some deep "marxist" analysis behind it are integrated to capital and its multitude of factions.

[Jazzratt]

how do they know for sure that they are not taking sides in inter-imperialist conflicts?

I'm not entirely clear on how you can take sides in something without knowing, it is after all an active decision on their part to give support to one side or another.

Charles Xavier


Left communists have a history of being idiots, dating back to the first one. Their objective is to attack progressive movements with undue criticism that are learned from Sloganeering and not deep analysis. They condemn everything and have no solution. Criticism without a solution is useless and idiotic. If communists around the world are making huge mistakes, what would the left communists do differently? Their silence on this question is condemning of themselves.

This is precisely the same boring cobblers that gets pointed at leftists of all stripes whenever they offer criticism. It's more likely that you haven't bothered to read or listen to proposed left communist solutions because you're an ignorant fuckwit than their not having any. Regardless I find it hilarious that in the face of criticism a lot of leftists would rather offer evasive shite like this than actually take on board or refute any of it.

[Kassad]

Regardless, the elitism of left communists is not any better than the dogmatism of hardcore anti-revisionists who praise every shit Stalin took.

[Charles Xavier]

blank

[Charles Xavier]

blank

[Rjevan]

You havn't achieved a thing other than putting some beaurocracies in place where there were capitalists - which then, later restored capitalism. This shit can't happen to left communists.
Oh the irony... true, because left communists won't ever achieve anything. ;)

Bashing everything and everybody who doesn't fit in your extreme narrow view as reactionaries, traitors, anti-workers, socialist imperialists, state capitalists and whatnot, firmly condemning every movement which actually dares to take concrete actions for some highly theoretical reasons and a very narrow way of interpretation and writing cynical articles which illustrate how superior your theory is and why everybody else was bound to suck from the very beginning must be quite fun but has actually never achieved anything.

I'm absolutely convinced that's the fault of the evil "Stalinists" purging all those great heros of the proletariat in their fascist states but actually those evil "Stalinists" have massively improved the situation of the workers and people generally in "their" countries, compared to tsarist Russia, Kuomintang China and tribal Albania as well as they have actively fought for the freedom of the international proletariat.

I apologise very much for every proletarian who was enabled a better life, for every worker who recieved more freedom, for every illiterate who was educated, for every woman who was given the same rights as men had by those terrible "Stalinists". It might have been indeed a better idea to write some angry pamphlets and stick to extremely dogmatic views, totally unappropriate in the curent situation and very likely risking the whole revolution. Better a failed revolution and the continuation of e.g. feudalism than a successful "Stalinist" revolution.

[black magick hustla]

You have a narrow and distorted view of internationalism. Nevertheless your problems start when you define every existing nation as imperialist which seems to make the term "imperialist" meaningless. Its like watching an old lady getting robbed and saying "we don't take sides in an inter-thief conflict" by defining the old lady too as being a thief. Also, such an attitude betrays the privileged environments and/or ivory towers from which such theories are produced. Of course in the real world, such theories never work.

Also many people died and got shot for many stupid ideas and theories (every religion has its martyrs), doesn't make them right.\


i dont think it makes the term meaningless. it has a political connotation, which implies there is no such thing as a defensible state. a position that has practical connotations too.

what ivory towers are this? do you know the history of the communist left at all? have you ever met left communist militants? if anything, stalinism has always been the product of a more or less comfortable intelligentsia.

[red cat]

What if in this scenario, state capitalism was the only option and solution to advance working class power? What if state socialism can not be implement on a society wide level at once?

What you need to do is not look at absolutes but at the processes. State capitalism is immensely superior to private or small scale capitalism. If state capitalism will lead to state socialism, as it did in the soviet union under Lenin, then it is incorrect to condemn it.

State capitalism can serve as an intermediate stage between socialism and capitalism, but it can also be used by revisionists to break down socialism before restoring capitalism. A major difference within these two cases is that in the former, the proletariat launches bitter class-struggle under the leadership of the CP, while in the latter the CP ( now revisionist ) liquidates proletarian class-struggle.

[black magick hustla]

Left communism has failed wherever such positions have been taken up by workers. As such your sect's history is utterly irrelevant today.
i think the world was nearest to revoluition when left communist ideas were popular actually. i dont think military success determines the class character of political positions, which is something maoists generally fetishize. i imagine napoleon was a good military strategist - i wouldnt take on his ideas because of that though.

in all honestly, your criticism of "irrelevance" doesnt hold any water especially when you worship "anti-revisionists" only old people with a crass taste for clothes and socially stunted people care for.




Right. Throw the accusation back at me. That seems to be the best you folk can do.:rolleyes:first i gave a whole argument why you were wrong - i implied that left communism was a product of "workers" in revolutionary situations, not intellectual ivory towers. so definitely "throwing back accusations" is not the best thing i do.

second, i am sorry i hurt your feelings. if you are going to come blasting bullshit with the most arrogant and gross misunderstanding of the issue you are bullshitting aout, expect to get fucking called out.


A state is a tool of class rule. In that case, why is a workers state not defensible and how can such a state be imperialist, unless it is revisionist? What you're describing is anarchismthere are no "worker's states" today. nor is there such thing as a worker's state actually - the state rises out of opposing class interests. in a revolutionary situation in a region, the state will arise regardless. however, there are no situations like this today.


By refusing to defend victims of imperialism (and by implication, calling even the victims "imperialists") these people do the job of the bourgeoisie better than the bourgeoisie themselves. Thus for them, Palestine is as imperialist as Israel. Its interesting to see how such ultra leftism can effectually do the job of a right wing opposition by its pacifism and mania for theoretical purity.i think we "defend" the victims of imperialism. what we dont do however, is call them to die. the victims of imperialism are not states, but people.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Charles Xavier:


society is that of contradictions, of class struggle between workers and capitalists and capitalist against capitalists. The back and fourth in the struggle of the workers, against the might of international imperialists powers leads to drastic decisions which lead to degeneracy in society as a whole, society does not build itself in a linear fashion, its dialectical, its back and fourth its the old fighting the new, with the new eventually coming out supreme.

Bur, why is this a contradiction?

[Chambered Word]

Oh look, it's one of these threads again.

Here is Mr Hardcore Stalinist who has come to tell us why everyone who isn't a hardline authoritarian is counter-revolutionary:


Some questions: How valid is this claim by left communists? When the all countries and the entire planet are pervaded by imperialism and capitalism (according to them), what makes them so special as to not be a part of the "left wing of capital" and how do they know for sure that they are not taking sides in inter-imperialist conflicts?

I feel like I've been backhanded across the face by the sheer irony.


What if in this scenario, state capitalism was the only option and solution to advance working class power? What if state socialism can not be implement on a society wide level at once?

What you need to do is not look at absolutes but at the processes. State capitalism is immensely superior to private or small scale capitalism. If state capitalism will lead to state socialism, as it did in the soviet union under Lenin, then it is incorrect to condemn it.

Here we have the usual 'we had to do it maaan, it was to save the working class!' which reminds me of all the conservative idiots said about the PATRIOT Act.


Oh the irony... true, because left communists won't ever achieve anything. ;)

Bashing everything and everybody who doesn't fit in your extreme narrow view as reactionaries, traitors, anti-workers, socialist imperialists, state capitalists and whatnot, firmly condemning every movement which actually dares to take concrete actions for some highly theoretical reasons and a very narrow way of interpretation and writing cynical articles which illustrate how superior your theory is and why everybody else was bound to suck from the very beginning must be quite fun but has actually never achieved anything.

Sheer irony. Accusing non-authoritarians of being fanatically sectarian and not actually doing anything useful.


I'm absolutely convinced that's the fault of the evil "Stalinists" purging all those great heros of the proletariat in their fascist states but actually those evil "Stalinists" have massively improved the situation of the workers and people generally in "their" countries, compared to tsarist Russia, Kuomintang China and tribal Albania as well as they have actively fought for the freedom of the international proletariat.

I apologise very much for every proletarian who was enabled a better life, for every worker who recieved more freedom, for every illiterate who was educated, for every woman who was given the same rights as men had by those terrible "Stalinists". It might have been indeed a better idea to write some angry pamphlets and stick to extremely dogmatic views, totally unappropriate in the curent situation and very likely risking the whole revolution. Better a failed revolution and the continuation of e.g. feudalism than a successful "Stalinist" revolution.

And therefore we should stick to Stalinism, because it's (barely) better than capitalism! You've just listed all the things that could have been achieved by a social democratic government!

It's a pity about how Russia, China and Albania are doing now.


Left communists have a history of being idiots, dating back to the first one. Their objective is to attack progressive movements with undue criticism that are learned from Sloganeering and not deep analysis. They condemn everything and have no solution. Criticism without a solution is useless and idiotic. If communists around the world are making huge mistakes, what would the left communists do differently? Their silence on this question is condemning of themselves.

"You guys all just want to criticize everything and not to anything useful!" I'll call you a whaaaaambulance.


Left communism has failed wherever such positions have been taken up by workers. As such your sect's history is utterly irrelevant today.

Utter bollocks and hipocrisy.

[Kassad]

This must be one of the dumbest things I've read. If anything, it is the anti-revisionists who take critical stands even on Stalin's mistakes as long as it strays from Marxist principles. It is the revisionists who defend every state capitalist/revisionist regime as being "socialist".

Just because you can throw around terms like 'revisionist' and 'state capitalist' does not mean you're making a scientific point. Congratulations to the anti-revisionist movement for siding with Cliffites and the hardcore anti-communist wing of Trotskyism on the classification of workers states as 'state capitalist.' How does that feel?

I rarely see much, if any, materialist or Marxist analysis of Stalin's mistakes from anti-revisionists because they're so infatuated with defending individuals who build a lot of bunkers that they forget to stand resolute in defending socialism in our present time. Makes me sick.

[Kassad]

Dictator? When did I use the term dictator? And how about adressing my points instead of just throwing around little references to amuse yourself? Frankly, you couldn't debate or defend points as a left communist and you still can't as an anti-revisionist. You just put forth dogmatic phrases, statements and terms with no scientific analysis. That's anti-Marxist, in case you were wondering.

[ls]

This thread is a load of shit.

LCs don't call everybody imperialist and there have been some LCs who changed sides during the course of their lives, one quick example is Bukharin obviously.

As for them having never done anything, if that's so, then why do you feel the need to continuously bash them? Surely you would show left-communism up for the revisionist evilness it is by ignoring and marginalising it?

[Kassad]

I'm not really sure what points you are talking about. You claimed anti-revisionists "praise every shit Stalin took" and I pointed out that I and many anti-revisionists are critical of Stalin's errors. Also, I'll admit that I cannot debate very well or write lengthy critiques like some of the party hacks here, but I try to put my points across as best as I can.

I'm asking you to address the anti-revisionist defense of anti-communist theories, claiming workers states 'state capitalist' and such. Why, when these states are constantly under attack by worldwide imperialism, would you not offer resolute defense and support for the construction of socialism in our world? Why do you, instead, choose to take the side of world imperialism in condemning these states? Why do anti-revisionists fall in line with Cliffites in the Trotskyist movement who classify these states as the same thing?

[ls]

Are you saying we should not criticize left communism?

Not at all, healthy criticism is good, I'm just pointing out your/others' hypocrisy. :cool: If you ever pointed out something valid about left-communism, regardless of your tendency, I would addresss it.

Redklok posted a recent thread about left-communism for example, which was quite critical, but you will notice there were a bunch of worthless troll posts by the usual suspects and a few decent ones by the OP themself and other than that, left-communists and sympathisers to left-communism. So essentially, if you've got no criticism worth giving the time of day, then don't post about it.

[The Red Next Door]

Left communists have a history of being idiots, dating back to the first one. Their objective is to attack progressive movements with undue criticism that are learned from Sloganeering and not deep analysis. They condemn everything and have no solution. Criticism without a solution is useless and idiotic. If communists around the world are making huge mistakes, what would the left communists do differently? Their silence on this question is condemning of themselves.

They say the same about you, with all of your anti-democratic ideas and Stalinistic ideology .

[The Red Next Door]

You're pretty dogmatic on your views of left-communists:rolleyes:

You havn't achieved a thing other than putting some beaurocracies in place where there were capitalists - which then, later restored capitalism. This shit can't happen to left communists. Then you try to excuse the restoration of capitalism with stuff like "there's no other way!", while the ones criticizing you are left behind as revisionists and counter revolutionaries...

Praise Trosky muzk seen the light, now stay where you are and don't go back.

[Bright Banana Beard]

I'm asking you to address the anti-revisionist defense of anti-communist theories, claiming workers states 'state capitalist' and such. Why, when these states are constantly under attack by worldwide imperialism, would you not offer resolute defense and support for the construction of socialism in our world? Why do you, instead, choose to take the side of world imperialism in condemning these states? Why do anti-revisionists fall in line with Cliffites in the Trotskyist movement who classify these states as the same thing?

Just because we call them state-capitalists does not amount to supporting imperialism against these socialist states. The Anti-Revisionists repeatedly called the USSR and China to revert back to central planning instead market mechanisms and help build international movements to help overthrow capitalism around the world, but they did not. They just pretend to be socialist while being imperialist in deeds. Instead of helping and building up revolutionary movement, they back down and deals with the capitalist world while calling for peaceful revolution. The APL line?
http://theredphoenix.wordpress.com/2010/02/07/imperialists-seek-war-with-iran/
http://theredphoenix.wordpress.com/2009/06/18/the-democratic-peoples-republic-of-korea-deserves-self-determination-and-nuclear-technology/