What do you think is the biggest barrier to revolution at the moment?

[AK]

I would say Fascism.

[AK]

Seriously, are the (handful) of Nazis that frequent a shitty pub wearing their shitty clothes and talking their shitty politics the BIGGEST barrier to a revolution? :rolleyes:
Most of the Neo-Fascist movements today regularly spit out their Islamaphobic, Nationalistic, Racisct and anti-Communist views. People buy this shit due to "facts" (the main points being exaggerated repression in the USSR and other purportedly socialist states and the supposedly apocalyptic wave of Muslim immigrants coming to Europe) they present. If that's not a threat to Marxism, I don't know what is.

[Decommissioner]

I feel cold war era propaganda and the mark left by the soviet union has most to do with preventing revolution, in america at least. I feel that number three and number four go hand in hand. If there was a strong revolutionary movement in america, we could easily combat the propaganda with propaganda of our own. Until then, to most we'll just continue being the crazy people on the street corners yelling about how the bad guys are actually good guys.

[F9]

Dont feed the troll...

As for biggest barrier, state obviously.Of course the state contains many mechanisms which have the fault of that.

[SandiNeesta]

I think apathy has a lot to do with it and the basic ignorance of most people that there could be a system better than the one we currently have. It is a shame but the average American is incapable of seeing beyond his immediate conditions and environment and although he may not be content with this status quo, he is conditioned to believe that our capitalist system is the best possible of any other options.

[Lexi]

Most of the Neo-Fascist movements today regularly spit out their Islamaphobic, Nationalistic, Racisct and anti-Communist views. People buy this shit due to "facts" (the main points being exaggerated repression in the USSR and other purportedly socialist states and the supposedly apocalyptic wave of Muslim immigrants coming to Europe) they present. If that's not a threat to Marxism, I don't know what is. They can spit them out as much as they like; they're not mainstream.* And incidentally, the ones who not only 'spit out' but also act on 'Islamaphobia' (lol), Nationalism, racism and anti-communism are the ones in government: labour, liberal and nationals.* These are the ones who supported the invasions of other countries, who introduced laws where workers can be fined individually for striking (has labour overturned that? no).* P.S: Hanson was no different from Howard; which is why he adopted much of her rhetoric and immigration polices. As for national anarchists; are you seriously suggesting that a group of what, a dozen anarchists are the biggest barrier to a revolution in Australia? You're like a kid who's learned a word for the first time and repeats it wherever you can.* Leftists like you use the word 'fascist' so much that you've destroyed what it actually means (and free protip 4 u, not everyone who is racist is a bad bad bad fascist).

[Delenda Carthago]

the biggest barrier is that the system still works.Not the state as it is,not the secret agencies,and in no way of course not the nazis(dude,we live in 2010,not in 1930).Its that the system still has abilities to function.Let us find those screws that keep it together in all aspects:economy,politics,philosophy.

[AK]

I think apathy has a lot to do with it and the basic ignorance of most people that there could be a system better than the one we currently have. It is a shame but the average American is incapable of seeing beyond his immediate conditions and environment and although he may not be content with this status quo, he is conditioned to believe that our capitalist system is the best possible of any other options.
Hmm, is it possible for an admin to add "state repression", "false class consciousness (middle class beliefs)", "undying faith in the capitalist system" and "working class political apathy" to the list of poll options?

[AK]

As for national anarchists; are you seriously suggesting that a group of what, a dozen anarchists are the biggest barrier to a revolution in Australia?
No, but it's an example to the other guy that those movements do in fact exist in Australia, and the size of future movements could be much larger than what we see today.

[SandiNeesta]

Hmm, is it possible for an admin to add "state repression" and "working class political apathy" to the list of poll options?
What do you mean by "middle class bullshit"?

[AK]

And there I've described the role of antifascism: a deluded movement comprised of teenage boys which is more concerned about street fighting insignificant social outcast losers than actually building a radical left movement based on class struggle.
Populist, racist and ultra-nationalist movements grow when there is nothing to stop them in their tracks. If you think what Antifa is doing is useless and/or futile, then go tell the Antifascists that to their faces.

[AK]

What do you mean by "middle class bullshit"?
I mean that alot of the First World working class have a false class consciousness, they think that they belong to this ambiguous middle class. A working class movement can not come about if the working class has been convinced that it does not exist. For you, I suggest a blog entry of mine: http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=836

[Lexi]

Populist, racist and ultra-nationalist movements grow when there is nothing to stop them in their tracks. If you think what Antifa is doing is useless and/or futile, then go tell the Antifascists that to their faces. Wrong. Fascism has historically been a strong movement when capital requires it; when the structures of democracy can no longer withstand a revolutionary working class and when such a working class is defeated. That's been the case in Germany, Spain and Italy. It is not the case in America, Australia or in Britain. And lol, I'll tell that antifascism is liberalism to any antifascist's face. What am I supposed to be, scared, or am I supposed to be showing how 'hard' I am like teH aNtIFa? :lol:

[Devrim]

If you think what Antifa is doing is useless and/or futile, then go tell the Antifascists that to their faces.

I have done, often.

Devrim

[Black Sheep]

Well with the capitalist crisis on our heads, i'd say the society will have to find a way through it through radicalism.
Let's hope (and make sure) that this 'radicalism' will express itself through revolutionary and not nationalist and conservative means.
It's an opportunity,and we'd better make a few steps forward that 100 steps back.

[red cat]

The revisionists hiding right inside the revolutionary communist parties are always the greatest threat to revolutions.

[piet11111]

the extreme lack of revolutionary leftists in all of the working class organizations (be they political party's or trade unions) and because of that they are doomed to stick with reformist politics or in some cases full on class treason.

there needs to be a struggle to take back the unions and party's from the hands of the bureaucratic class traitors.

[rednordman]

I'd say that its probably cultural hegemony.

[which doctor]

bad leftism is the biggest barrier to revolution at the moment

[Iiex]

The revisionists hiding right inside the revolutionary communist parties are always the greatest threat to revolutions. Revolutions are made by millions, not overturned on the whim of half a dozen members of the CCCP. You've reduced Marxism to nothing more than conspiracy theory, to the question of the success of revolutions as depending on the correct leadership, where those scary bogeyman revisionists hiding in the back-seats of communist meetings must be fought!

[red cat]

Revolutions are made by millions, not overturned on the whim of half a dozen members of the CCCP. You've reduced Marxism to nothing more than conspiracy theory, to the question of the success of revolutions as depending on the correct leadership, where those scary bogeyman revisionists hiding in the back-seats of communist meetings must be fought!

So a minority within a Marxist party has not launched a counter-revolution ever in history ?

[Iiex]

Mainly they were majorities, mainly they were only continuing what their predecessors had done. Their reactionary nature was hardly suprising when they were part of a reactionary party. Ya know, Marxists tend to be concerned with social movements, with the material and class roots behind social changes. If you think that the biggest threat in a revolutionary society lies in weeding out those naughty revisionists, then I hardly think that is a revolutionary society if the working class is so weak and having so little power that a few members in the CC can overturn mass social change.

But hey, I can agree with you on one thing: a bullet in the head of any Maoist or Stalinist by a revolutionary working class suits me fine.

[red cat]

Mainly they were majorities, mainly they were only continuing what their predecessors had done. Their reactionary nature was hardly suprising when they were part of a reactionary party. Ya know, Marxists tend to be concerned with social movements, with the material and class roots behind social changes. If you think that the biggest threat in a revolutionary society lies in weeding out those naughty revisionists, then I hardly think that is a revolutionary society if the working class is so weak and having so little power that a few members in the CC can overturn mass social change.
But hey, I can agree with you on one thing: a bullet in the head of any Maoist or Stalinist by a revolutionary working class suits me fine.

Good. You have just denounced the Russian revolution.

Anyway, if you are so eager to watch Maoists or Stalinists getting shot, why don't you go to Nepal and try to shoot one yourself? It's kinda cowardly to make comments like that from the first world, ya know..

[Iiex]

You've just denounced the Russian Revolution when you define it as a struggle against 'revisionist leadership', and not a struggle against Tsarism, not a struggle against capitalism, not a struggle against the dozen or so armies that entered and supported the Whites in one of the most brutal civil wars in human history. Why, all of those factors, the millions of deaths, why all of those things were mere trivialities compared to those revisionists in the Bolshevik party, right baby? :rolleyes:

And coming from someone who lives in Canada you words are cheap.

And coming from a Maoist pig, they're even cheaper.

[Iiex]

Coming from an anti-Semite and a piece of shit like you your words mean very, very little. :blushing:

[Iiex]

I love how you went from Anarchist to Stalinoid in a matter of months, whilst all the same time retaining your liberalism. :wub:

[red cat]

Enjoy trolling while you can. :lol:

By the way, what made you think I am from Canada? Just curious.

[Iiex]

Left communists who oppose anti-fascism should not baselessly accuse others of anti-semitism.

And liberals who support liberal anti fascism shouldn't call themselves communists.

But what can a girl do 'bout it? :(


Glad I could fulfuill your perverted fantasies. Its about time you checked in to your local mental institution.

No fantasies here, and the only person who should be checked into a mental institution are those who think that the BIGGEST threat to revolutions are those bogeyman hiding inside the all-mighty communist party.

You know why?

Because that's delusional and up there with people who think there's a Jewish World Order (i.e. anti-Semites like you).

:)

[Iiex]

Enjoy trolling while you can. :lol: Enjoy avoiding the debate whilst you can. You stated: "The revisionists hiding right inside the revolutionary communist parties are always the greatest threat to revolutions.' Doesn't such dribble crack you up too? :lol:

I stated: no, the biggest threat to the Bolshevik revolution was a brutal civil war against the Whites and other reactionary elements as well as the failure of the international revolutions in Germany and Italy.

[Iiex]

Left communists should join the fascists whom you obviously sympathize with.Too late; Stalin beat me to it, you fucking dumb ****.

[The Red Next Door]

The revisionists hiding right inside the revolutionary communist parties are always the greatest threat to revolutions.

Can we stop with the sectarianism?

[red cat]

Enjoy avoiding the debate whilst you can. You stated: "The revisionists hiding right inside the revolutionary communist parties are always the greatest threat to revolutions.' Doesn't such dribble crack you up too? :lol:

I stated: no, the biggest threat to the Bolshevik revolution was a brutal civil war against the Whites and other reactionary elements as well as the failure of the international revolutions in Germany and Italy.

Wow! Troll attempting to debate now ! :lol:

By the way, your attempted neg reps don't count. :lol:

And learn to support your claims with proof. Debating on revolutions is a distant goal for you. Start by explaining what made you think I'm from Canada.

[red cat]

Can we stop with the sectarianism?

What is sectarian here?

[red cat]

Too late; Stalin beat me to it, you fucking dumb ****.

Forbidden word. Now you're a goner!

[Iiex]

The 'communists' under Stalin allied with liberals and capitalists to fight in an imperialist war to defend their own interests, interests which were at risk only because facists had broken a neutrality agreement that your lovely Stalin had made with Nazi Germany. The 'communists' under Stalin allied with liberals, republicans and nationalists to take a side in an imperialist war. Every group which had the support of Stalin turned out to be nothing more than liberals. In stead of arguing for class war, they advocated imperialist war. Instead of arguing for class solidarity they propagated anti-German rhetoric.

[Iiex]

Wow! Troll attempting to debate now ! :lol:

By the way, your attempted neg reps don't count. :lol:

And learn to support your claims with proof. Debating on revolutions is a distant goal for you. Start by explaining what made you think I'm from Canada.

'I know I've been demonstrated to look like a fucking ridiculous moron who adheres to a Great-Man / Great-Bogey-Man conception of history, so I'll just avoid answering whatsoever.'

Yup, you're a coward.

[Iiex]

And please, I've forgotten more about the Russian Revolution than a fuckwit like you will ever know. Tell me how the greatest threat to the Russian Revolution wasn't the Civil War with the Whites, where ~15 million had died, but rather the BIGGEST threat to revolution was, *gasp* revisionists hiding in the Bolshevik party! :laugh:

Do you honestly believe that? If so, you're even stupider than I thought.

And that's saying something.

[red cat]

'I know I've been demonstrated to look like a fucking ridiculous moron who adheres to a Great-Man / Great-Bogey-Man conception of history, so I'll just avoid answering whatsoever.'

Good to know that you've realized what you are.


Yup, you're a coward.

Is that the answer to my last question ? You have that against Canadians? Or is it just another random swearing-spree of yours?

[red cat]

And please, I've forgotten more about the Russian Revolution than a fuckwit like you will ever know. Tell me how the greatest threat to the Russian Revolution wasn't the Civil War with the Whites, where ~15 million had died, but rather the BIGGEST threat to revolution was, *gasp* revisionists hiding in the Bolshevik party! :laugh:

Do you honestly believe that? If so, you're even stupider than I thought.

And that's saying something.

How did the Russian revolution collapse ?

[Iiex]

Good to know that you've realized what you are.

Honey, I wasn't the one who wrote ""The revisionists hiding right inside the revolutionary communist parties are always the greatest threat to revolutions."

That was you.

I know its hard on your small head, but please keep up. :(

[red cat]

Honey, I wasn't the one who wrote ""The revisionists hiding right inside the revolutionary communist parties are always the greatest threat to revolutions."

That was you.

I know its hard on your small head, but please keep up. :(

Then you probably confused yourself with me because you are schizophrenic. Are you Derrida's sockpuppet ? By the way, you still haven't mentioned what made you think that I'm Canadian.

[Iiex]

How did the Russian revolution collapse ?

Sweetheart, I know you like to change the onus of proof, but when you say things like ""The revisionists hiding right inside the revolutionary communist parties are always the greatest threat to revolutions."

And then I offer a rebuttal, that the Civil War where millions of people died was the greatest threat to the revolution at that particular time, then you have to offer an argument (I know!) on why the fact that no, the civil war wasn't that important (ya know, 15 million dead is nothing, right?) but rather, the GREATEST threat to the revolution was in fact the revisionists inside the Bolshevik party.

Please show me how that was the case. And if you don't then we can assume you know that your argument is so shit that you don't have a case to stand on.

[Iiex]

Can I just repeat your lovely phrase again:

"The revisionists hiding right inside the revolutionary communist parties are always the greatest threat to revolutions."

Marx began the Communist Manifesto saying that

"Freeman and slave, patrician and plebian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes."

and

The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.

Whereas, according to Maoite dogma, what he SHOULD have said is that the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of struggles between leaders, and not classes.

This is why Maoites like yourself are liberals. :)

[red cat]

Can I just repeat your lovely phrase again:

"The revisionists hiding right inside the revolutionary communist parties are always the greatest threat to revolutions."

Marx began the Communist Manifesto saying that

"Freeman and slave, patrician and plebian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes."

and

The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.

Whereas, according to Maoite dogma, what he SHOULD have said is that the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of struggles between leaders, and not classes.

This is why Maoites like yourself are liberals. :)

Have you got any idea about what you are posting ? Do you even know the meaning of revisionism ?

[The Ben G]

I say infighting. We have the numbers, but some of us are to rapped up about the Stalin v. Trotsky and the 'Revisionist1!1!!!!1' counter revolutionary thinking.

[red cat]

Sweetheart, I know you like to change the onus of proof, but when you say things like ""The revisionists hiding right inside the revolutionary communist parties are always the greatest threat to revolutions."

And then I offer a rebuttal, that the Civil War where millions of people died was the greatest threat to the revolution at that particular time, then you have to offer an argument (I know!) on why the fact that no, the civil war wasn't that important (ya know, 15 million dead is nothing, right?) but rather, the GREATEST threat to the revolution was in fact the revisionists inside the Bolshevik party.

Please show me how that was the case. And if you don't then we can assume you know that your argument is so shit that you don't have a case to stand on.

How does this proof that the civil war was the greatest threat to the revolution then ?

The ones who gave away the plan of the revolution were inside the party. Anything could have happened.

[Iiex]

Have you got any idea about what you are posting ? Do you even know the meaning of revisionism ? Do you understand the concept of class and how when you argue the struggle for communism as the struggle for the correct leaders (against the 'revisionist' bogeyman) how antithetical to Marxism that is?

:rolleyes:

[red cat]

Do you understand the concept of class and how when you argue the struggle for communism as the struggle for the correct leaders (against the 'revisionist' bogeyman) how antithetical to Marxism that is?

:rolleyes:

Revisionism is the political representation of the bourgeoisie inside the communist party.

[Crux]

In all seriousness the question of a revolutionary leadership is not a non-question.

[Iiex]

How does this proof that the civil war was the greatest threat to the revolution then ?

To quote Lenin: " This experience, similarly to the experience of all European revolutions, from the end of the eighteenth century on shows that civil war is the sharpest form of the class struggle, it is that point in the class struggle when clashes and battles, economic and political, repeating themselves, growing, broadening, becoming acute, turn into an armed struggle of one class against another. More often than not—one may say almost always—in all more or less free and ~. advanced countries the civil war is between those classes whose antagonistic position towards each other is created and deepened by the entire economic development of capitalism, by the entire history of modern society the world over—civil war is between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. "

Whatever outcome of the other revolutions in Europe, the failure to win the Civil War meant a return to capitalism, no questions about it. It was the biggest threat because it was possible that the Bolsheviks and the Soviets could be overthrown and dismantled. It was also dangerous to the Bolsheviks merely because an extended war meant stronger dissent against the Bolsheviks, as seen in the Tambov and Kronstadt rebellions.

[red cat]

To quote Lenin: " This experience, similarly to the experience of all European revolutions, from the end of the eighteenth century on shows that civil war is the sharpest form of the class struggle, it is that point in the class struggle when clashes and battles, economic and political, repeating themselves, growing, broadening, becoming acute, turn into an armed struggle of one class against another. More often than not—one may say almost always—in all more or less free and ~. advanced countries the civil war is between those classes whose antagonistic position towards each other is created and deepened by the entire economic development of capitalism, by the entire history of modern society the world over—civil war is between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. "

Whatever outcome of the other revolutions in Europe, the failure to win the Civil War meant a return to capitalism, no questions about it. It was the biggest threat because it was possible that the Bolsheviks and the Soviets could be overthrown and dismantled. It was also dangerous to the Bolsheviks merely because an extended war meant stronger dissent against the Bolsheviks, as seen in the Tambov and Kronstadt rebellions.

But if revisionism immobilizes the party from within, or helps reactionary forces, then the party can't win any struggle, be it the civil war or anything else.

[Invincible Summer]

Iiex = Rosa II in terms of argument style.

Can we get this user suspended or something? They've taken the opinion of one member and turned it into a wholly sectarian flamefest, not to mention advocating the murder of fellow comrades.

Iiex you still haven't answered why you think red cat is Canadian...


Anyways, I think that sectarianism is probably one of the biggest barriers, as well as anti-communist propaganda.

[RadioRaheem84]

The infighting is really killing us. We need to be united by one thing and one thing only; socialism.

[Weezer]

Can we stop with the sectarianism?

red cat has a point. Revisionists, ie someone who distorts Marxism(Stalinists), is undoubtedly a threat to revolution.

But I would say capitalism is the biggest barrier to revolution.

[Invincible Summer]

red cat has a point. Revisionists, ie someone who distorts Marxism(Stalinists), is undoubtedly a threat to revolution.

But I would say capitalism is the biggest barrier to revolution.

:rolleyes: How ironic.


And I think saying that capitalism is a "barrier" to revolution is sort of a given.

[Q]

Sectarianism amongst the left organisations. If we actually organised around a common programme of action and used this platform to discuss our political differences in an open and transparent way, we might actually get ourselves an audience of many millions. But such a reconsideration is of course out of the question for the leaderships of many organisations.

[Weezer]

:rolleyes: How ironic.

Really, how so? A revisionist is someone who distorts Marxism, and Stalinists clearly fit that category.

[Invincible Summer]

Really, how so? A revisionist is someone who distorts Marxism, and Stalinists clearly fit that category.


It's ironic because you said you agreed that sectarianism was a problem, yet you are slagging "Stalinists." I suppose I should've formatted my reply differently

[Omi]

Sectarianism amongst the left organisations. If we actually organised around a common programme of action and used this platform to discuss our political differences in an open and transparent way, we might actually get ourselves an audience of many millions. But such a reconsideration is of course out of the question for the leaderships of many organisations.

Maybe the fact an organization has a leadership that can actually prevent leftists from organizing with other leftists is a problem in and of itself.

[The Red Next Door]

What is sectarian here?

Your comment.

[The Red Next Door]

red cat has a point. Revisionists, ie someone who distorts Marxism(Stalinists), is undoubtedly a threat to revolution.

But I would say capitalism is the biggest barrier to revolution.
Yeah, you are right :D

[The Red Next Door]

Really, how so? A revisionist is someone who distorts Marxism, and Stalinists clearly fit that category.
Not only that, some of them are highly intolerant of other tendencies.

[Invincible Summer]

Your comment.

All red cat said was that revisionists are barriers to revolution. He never said that Trots, Left-Commies, Anarchists, etc are. Revisionists could be capitalist-roaders for all I care.


Not only that, some of them are highly intolerant of other tendencies.

I thought you were saying we should end the sectarianism?

[Wanted Man]

It can be any of the above, at any given time. In a developing revolutionary situation, fascism can be pulled out of the magic hat to nip the workers' struggle in the bud, but this is not happening at the moment.

A concrete problem is the lack of working-class solidarity, although it is thankfully growing. The problem, at least over here, is that a lot of union organising has been done within sectors, aimed only at desperately clutching on to the last straws that remain of the results of decades-long class struggle. Therefore, it is a very good development that we are now seeing coordination involving more radical perspectives, workers from all branches, solidarity from the student movement and vice versa, etc.

This still needs to grow, but when it gets to a more critical point, then things like these poll options will have to be addressed concretely, and they will acutely become barriers that have to be overcome. Learning how to do so can only be done through practice.

[The Ben G]

Revisionists are people who call themsleves Marxist-Leninists or Maoists and destroy the communist movement.

I thought it was non marxist leftism.

[gorillafuck]

I don't wholly agree with any of those (it's not just one thing) fascism is probably the smallest barrier, in my opinion.

[The Red Next Door]

All red cat said was that revisionists are barriers to revolution. He never said that Trots, Left-Commies, Anarchists, etc are. Revisionists could be capitalist-roaders for all I care.



I thought you were saying we should end the sectarianism?
oh i thought most stalinist consider those to be revisionist, sectarianism can end with some of the Stalinist being tolerant.

[MaoTseHelen]

None of the above. It's how comfortable people feel that pacifies them.

[Invincible Summer]

oh i thought most stalinist consider those to be revisionist, sectarianism can end with some of the Stalinist being tolerant.

Well from my experiences in real life and on Revleft, it's other tendencies that attack "Stalinists," not the other way around.

Most anti-revisionists are anti-Deng, Khruschev, and their successors, not necessarily anyone who is not ML. Historically, Trotskyists and MLs/MLMs have issues, true. But even if Stalin himself considered those tendencies to be "revisionist," I don't think many modern Marxist-Leninists that defend Stalin-era USSR would necessarily support the purge of any non-MLers or anything like that.

[Weezer]

It cannot be as non-Marxists have not adopted Marxism to revise it. One has to be a Marxist first. Eduard Bernstein and the Second international were the earliest Marxists to revise Marxism. Khrushchev and Deng are more recent examples of revisionists.

I noticed that you didn't include Trotsky.

So, Trotskyism is really fascism after all?



Most anti-revisionists are anti-Deng, Khruschev, and their successors, not necessarily anyone who is not ML. Historically, Trotskyists and MLs/MLMs have issues, true. But even if Stalin himself considered those tendencies to be "revisionist," I don't think many modern Marxist-Leninists that defend Stalin-era USSR would necessarily support the purge of any non-MLers or anything like that.

This is very true. Many contemporary Marxist-Leninsts have left the 1940's. Most of my beefs with Marxist-Leninists(if any) it's those who think purges are perfectly okay. That one guy who started The Stalin Thread once said something about the beauty of purges...just disgusting. I would say it's a minority though.

[AK]

I have done, often.

Devrim
But would you just let racist and hateful attacks against others go un-noticed? With no-one to oppose them? Do you sympathise with neo-Nazis or something? Whatever leftist opposition there is to racism, that opposition is great.

[vyborg]

the mistrust of the working class in itself

[Devrim]

But would you just let racist and hateful attacks against others go un-noticed? With no-one to oppose them? Do you sympathise with neo-Nazis or something? Whatever leftist opposition there is to racism, that opposition is great.

No, I don't sympathise with neo-Nazis, but nor do I think they are the main cause of racism and racist attacks in society. I think you get much more dangerous racism coming from the established parties and the mainstream media.

As has been stated, much anti-fascism is little more than macho-posturing, and also invariably ends up make alliances with different bourgeois factions.

Devrim

[Tatarin]

Hmm, good question...

1. Contemporary fascist movements (BNP, etc.)

No, I don't think they pose the biggest threat, at least not yet. These groups are still quite small, and I don't see their "message" being that much of a revelation, I think most people are somewhat aware on where these groups stand. The thing is that the main parties are seen as nonfunctional, big buearucracies filled with corruption, while groups like BNP are "new parties" who have a clear intention of what they want. I mean, what do New Labor want? Look how their reign turned out. If the left begin to rise in numbers and in demands as a united group and demanding real change, I think these groups will loose their holds quite quickly.

2. Ignorant conservatives (and their god, Glenn Beck)

Hmm, maybe in the US, but only to a very small degree. Besides, do many working class or even "middle class" citizens really listen to their garbage anyway?

3. Infighting within the left (The great tendency war)

I voted for this, because by and large the left is still greatly divided and too weak to start demanding real changes that would make people rally behind "them", but I also guess the time is not right yet. Only now when the EU is showing the long one to Greece and Iceland (and soon perhaps to Portugal and Spain) are people rallying. Should there be a situation where anarchists in Greece, for example, begins a real revolution, then I think it is important that all of the left stand behind them, just as we should stand behind the Maoists in India and Nepal.

4. Cold War-era propaganda; fear of another USSR/PRC/DPRK, etc.

Yes, one of the leading factors. Many demonstrations are targeting "closer" goals, higher wages and not the abolishment of the wage system. That is, the demands go in steps rather than in leaps I'd say. But mostly I believe that many people still think that the system "works", if only this and that could be changed. People have the illusion that we have democracy and that we can choose how the economic system should look like.

[red cat]

I think that "infighting within the left" is not an issue at all. Even just before the Russian revolution, it seemed that communists were busy in splitting and fighting among themselves. This "infighting" among so called revolutionaries might be just what it seems to us at present; in the places where the revolutions are progressing fast, the differences between communist and revisionist groups are much more evident.

Unity can come only through revolutionary practice. Any forced attempt to unite despite major theoretical and practical differences will only let in more counter-revolutionaries in the true communist movements.

[AK]

"middle class"
GTFO. :lol: I've had enough of middle class BS. But at least you were using it in context...


4. Cold War-era propaganda; fear of another USSR/PRC/DPRK, etc.

Yes, one of the leading factors. Many demonstrations are targeting "closer" goals, higher wages and not the abolishment of the wage system. That is, the demands go in steps rather than in leaps I'd say. But mostly I believe that many people still think that the system "works", if only this and that could be changed. People have the illusion that we have democracy and that we can choose how the economic system should look like.
What's also important to mention is that the neo-Fascist movements and the neo-Conservatives use this strategy, too - the strategy being scaring the shit out of people by saying "Commies will turn our countries into Soviet disasters" or "Commies want to create an Orwellian dystopian state".

[VILemon]

The left doesn't have its act together, at least in much of the world. Case in point: when the recent economic crisis brought to the fore contradictions in capitalism, there were very few voices of prominence (or with the proper organizational preparedness) to portray the event for what it was. It's a neoliberal, post-cold-war world right now, and the left (with very few exceptions) still hasn't figured out how to bring the struggle to the current conditions (i.e. to seem relevant).

Luckily, though there has been a disconcerting rise in the far-right, I think that fascists appear even more irrelevant...and they are.

[RadioRaheem84]

1.) Infighting is definitely an issue. We seem to think that revolution needs to be perfect so we fight with dogmatic leftists who are afraid of being labeled Stalinist by liberals, and then some of us also tend to think that a revolution can crack a few skulls so we fight with dogmatic leftist on the other side that are OK with abuses.

2.) Liberalism, Social Democrats, proponents of the welfare state have really dominated the media and have taken over the mantle the left has abandoned when it comes to workers plight. The youth are really liberal in the worst sense of the kind; they believe themselves to be morally superior for finding that middle ground between the older generations that thought it's all capitalism or socialism or nothing.

3.) Conservatism/Right-Libertarianism: In the US there is a prevalent idea that the we must give the rich what they want so they can trickle down goodies to us in the form of jobs and cheap credit to buy cheap crap and apply for crappy jobs. I once argued for about two hours with a poor as can be working class man, who in the end said that if the rich were to give him enough money (job) and enough freedom to do what he wants then they can do what ever the hell they wanted to do! It sounded like the kind of talk people in a dictatorship say about their beloved leader. It was if he was saying that as long as he can subsist, he doesn't mind the terrible income disparity or that the rich can get away with murder.


The point is that we have a lot of work to do and we really should come to some sort of agreement as to which popular movements happening around the world do we want to defend and which do we want to cast off from the leftist lot.

[Wolf Larson]

All of the above. Put an option for all of the above and I'll vote for that.

[The Ben G]

How did you conclude that from what said? Trotskyism is revisionism, not fascism.

How is Trotskyism revisionist? Its no more revisionist than Stalinism.

Can we please stop this?

[Luisrah]

The greatest barrier to revolution is that we don't have a politically conscious and active proletariat.

Simple

If we had such a proletariat, we wouldn't have to worry about anything.
They'd be conscious to overthrow the bourgeoisie, they'd be conscious to be wary of opportunists and revisionists, etc.

Consciencializing the proletariat is probably always the most helpful thing we can do to the revolution

[Robocommie]

I know infighting is annoying, but I don't see why we feel that infighting in the left is a greater hindrance. A hindrance to US, yes, but a hindrance to revolution in a general sense? If it's true that the petty squables of Socialist tendencies are indeed such a hindrance, one might almost suggest we should all just quit and get out of the way of the progression of history.

But then, I don't feel that's the case.

[Ovi]

The complete irrelevance of revolutionary leftist politics maybe? And we're the only ones to blame for that.

[red cat]

How is Trotskyism revisionist? Its no more revisionist than Stalinism.


We can have a separate thread on this.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

The revisionists hiding right inside the revolutionary communist parties are always the greatest threat to revolutions.

I'd say utterly unmarxist notions like this were the greatest threat to genuine working class revolutions.

And what do you mean by "revisionists" "hiding" in communist parties? Do you suppose that a bunch of self professed revisionists occupy Marxists parties at the moment? Just waiting for the chance to spring their evil revisionist deeds?

Sounds to me like you've been reading too many comic books - real history doesn't work like that!

[Agnapostate]

The anti-socialist propaganda is a tool of the "ignorant conservatives" mentioned, so those certainly overlap. As for tendency conflicts, it's inevitable that they would be present when there are very real and deep conflicts between the political philosophies of different factions of self-described socialists (who regularly dispute the socialism of other factions, something I frankly admit to even while clarifying that I generally avoid this outside of the anarchist discussion group), on the forum.

I've rejected violent revolution as improbable and unfeasible at this time in politically stable and developed first-world countries, due to the lack of experience of the general population with true political warfare as opposed to the consensus politics of the Democrats and Republicans, as well as the substantially improved labor conditions that reduce extreme and widespread hostility towards capitalists and coordinators, and the resultant apathy and weakness from such factors.

So I instead promote the big tent that diminishes into a small tent over time, a sphere of participation that gradually declines until the heart of the movement is dealing with the heart of the issues. In our current climate, for example, we'd have a broad and generic "left" coalition when it comes to advancing similarly broad and generic "progressive" goals (a cessation of immigration restrictions, a minimum wage increase, etc.), a smaller "anti-capitalist" coalition that includes self-described socialists of all stripes that could be in agreement when it came to the implementation of anti-capitalist aims while using republican tactics as a mechanism (such as the pursuit of nationalization efforts), and finally, an anarchist core that seeks explicitly anarchist goals when anarchism was expansive enough to function as an influential social movement. The intermediate sphere is what unites RevLeft.

The ironic aspect, of course, is that it's anarchists who are most likely to reject the entire strategy as reformism and capitulation.

[red cat]

I'd say utterly unmarxist notions like this were the greatest threat to genuine working class revolutions.

And what do you mean by "revisionists" "hiding" in communist parties? Do you suppose that a bunch of self professed revisionists occupy Marxists parties at the moment? Just waiting for the chance to spring their evil revisionist deeds?

Sounds to me like you've been reading too many comic books - real history doesn't work like that!

Really ? How did the USSR or socialist PRC collapse ?

[Agnapostate]

Really ? How did the USSR or socialist PRC collapse ?

Better to say that they were dismantled, to more effectively make the point that you're focusing on (that I agree with, incidentally). "Internal" sabotage; the supposed doctors murdered the patient.

[Robocommie]

Really ? How did the USSR or socialist PRC collapse ?

Poor structuring of the system to allow corruption and self-interest to creep in at the very top, and then once it was in, it was impossible to pry out. That's not "revisionism" unless old fashioned greed and corruption are somehow an ideological form.

[red cat]

Poor structuring of the system to allow corruption and self-interest to creep in at the very top, and then once it was in, it was impossible to pry out. That's not "revisionism" unless old fashioned greed and corruption are somehow an ideological form.

It is not that simple. They also need a political theory to back up the gradual reversal of socialist policy and Marxist principles. That is revisionism.

[Robocommie]

It is not that simple. They also need a political theory to back up the gradual reversal of socialist policy and Marxist principles. That is revisionism.

Fair enough, but I still submit that if the Soviet Union had been structured in a less authoritarian way, from the beginning, "they" would not have had the influence necessary to revise socialism and turn it on it's head.

[red cat]

Fair enough, but I still submit that if the Soviet Union had been structured in a less authoritarian way, from the beginning, "they" would not have had the influence necessary to revise socialism and turn it on it's head.

True. But though it is easy for us to point that out now( even if most of us cannot provide the exact alternative details), as the first revolution to completely defeat the national bourgeoisie and subsequent imperialist aggression, it must have been extremely difficult to deduce the Bolshevik strategy itself. The proletariat learns through experience. So it is our duty to uphold the Russian revolution.

[Robocommie]

True. But though it is easy for us to point that out now( even if most of us cannot provide the exact alternative details), as the first revolution to completely defeat the national bourgeoisie and subsequent imperialist aggression, it must have been extremely difficult to deduce the Bolshevik strategy itself. The proletariat learns through experience. So it is our duty to uphold the Russian revolution.

The Revolution itself I uphold, I just don't want to stop pointing out the mistakes that had been made out of concern that it will be forgotten the next time around. Because when folks place the blame on revisionism, I worry that it could be possible to miss the forest for the trees, as it were.

[red cat]

The Revolution itself I uphold, I just don't want to stop pointing out the mistakes that had been made out of concern that it will be forgotten the next time around. Because when folks place the blame on revisionism, I worry that it could be possible to miss the forest for the trees, as it were.

The point is that had the threat of revisionist takeover from the inside been absent, then the classical Bolshevik line would have been sufficient to safeguard socialism.

[Robocommie]

That much I don't think I can agree with, if only because it's impossible in a chaotic thing like real life to maintain such ideological purity, and furthermore, if a social system lacks the strength to either acommodate or resist clashing ideologies, including revisionism, it's insufficiently strong.

[red cat]

That much I don't think I can agree with, if only because it's impossible in a chaotic thing like real life to maintain such ideological purity, and furthermore, if a social system lacks the strength to either acommodate or resist clashing ideologies, including revisionism, it's insufficiently strong.

I don't get your point here. What I mean to say is that most of the qualitative development of Marxism-Leninism post Lenin has been directed towards preventing a capitalist restoration. Classical Leninism would be enough to safeguard revolutions in formerly capitalist countries given the assumption that revisionism is non-existent.

[syndicat]

among the options given, i selected cold war propaganda and the prevalent view of socialism as authoritarian. but my view is that the main barrier is actually working class passivity. another problem not mentioned was racism. racism isn't diminishing in terms of objective circumstances for people of color but is diminishing as a barrier due to greater openness and multicultural experiences of younger white working class.

[AK]

That's not "revisionism" unless old fashioned greed and corruption are somehow an ideological form.
That form is called capitalism :)

[Robocommie]

I don't get your point here. What I mean to say is that most of the qualitative development of Marxism-Leninism post Lenin has been directed towards preventing a capitalist restoration. Classical Leninism would be enough to safeguard revolutions in formerly capitalist countries given the assumption that revisionism is non-existent.

I'm just saying that it's impossible to have a revolutionary movement which won't contain any elements that some would consider, or in fact may be revisionist. Diversity of opinion shouldn't be seen as the enemy, so it's not necessarily relevant if classical Leninism would be sufficient sans revisionism.

But what IS classical Leninism? It's my understanding that that is a highly disputed subject amongst the tendencies.

[Dermezel]

It's a lack of class consciousness and scientific thinking among the left. Very few leftists for example recognize the importance of the internet or new technologies and insist on weird Luddite methods, like pamphleteering, or focusing on labor gains over politics.

There is a major lack of scientific literacy among certain elements of the left, and an almost Luddite attitude about technology coupled with a major romanticism of labor as some magical force that can defeat anything.

This causes the proletariat to focus on weird schemes, like a fair days wages for a fair days work type nonsense instead of recognizing the need to focus on social programs and political change.

There is a near total absence of understanding on how capitalism works from a scientific perspective. Almost nobody I meet has even read Capital, does not know the law of capital centralization, and even promotes the labor theory of value as a prescriptive. It's almost comical.

It's like they are promoting hard work, which is just ridiculous from a strategic perspective.

Also there is an almost complete lack of unity, especially with respect to China and Cuba and other Workers' States.

A lot has to do with the assumption that if you are nice to the bourgeoisie they will be nice back. If you join them in condemning the "Red Menace" which is China, they will return the favor by being nicer to you. If you join them in criticizing "parasites" and welfare queens who want a "free ride" by arguing against people "abusing" social programs they will be much nicer and give you fairer wages.

Yeah right. All that will happen is the bourgeoisie will get what he wants, divide you against your comrades, and then use your favors and compromises to screw you over further. Get rid of "welfare abuse" by shrinking welfare spending (or establishing weird "welfare to work" schemes) well guess what? Your employer knows you cannot go on welfare now and have to accept whatever working conditions he assigns. Time for a wage cut.

Ready to stand all patriotic against China? Well guess what, the reactionaries used that propaganda to get elected, now it's time to start a war with Iran and privatize Social Security.

The only reason you should ever ally with a bourgeoisie is with a liberal bourgeoisie against fascism, or to promote progressive reforms. Do not support something right-wing or regressive in the hopes that the bourgeoisie will reciprocate out of some sense of fairness.

[syndicat]

Also there is an almost complete lack of unity, especially with respect to China and Cuba and other Workers' States.

oh yeah, the working class in the USA is just sooo supportive of those authoritarian regimes.

i think regimes like that are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

[Dermezel]

oh yeah, the working class in the USA is just sooo supportive of those authoritarian regimes.

i think regimes like that are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

I bet you said the same thing about the former Soviet Union, and look how much better off the people are in Russia since then, and how high class consciousness is since the collapse of the USSR.


Homeless street children seek shelter in the underground sewers of Odessa, Ukraine, but the camera lens of the Rev. Bob Gamble is bringing their stories to light.


Street children are often fleeing from abusive families or became orphans as a result of the AIDS epidemic.

http://www.deti.zp.ua/eng/show_article.php?a_id=5063

That is an awesome "solution" to the "problem".

Also the left in the US is weaker then ever since the fall of the USSR.

[Red Commissar]

For me, I would say the two biggest problems are from one side the conservative pundits continuing to peddle cold war propaganda. I think we would also have to acknowledge there are issues on our end. Problems with infighting, lifestylists, and overall seemingly losing support from the working class to right-wing populists.

[syndicat]

I bet you said the same thing about the former Soviet Union, and look how much better off the people are in Russia since then, and how high class consciousness is since the collapse of the USSR.


you're not addressing the question. the question is: what are the barriers to class consciousness in the working class in USA? that the USSR was sold as "socialism" is one of the problems. the fact that it collapsed, and its elite changed it to a system that was even more destructive, is surely no argument that we should look to what existed in the USSR. the USSR was a one-party police state in which workers were subordinate to, and exploited by, a bureaucratic ruling class. if people are told this is what "socialism" is and that this is the only alternative, that undermines the will to fight to eliminate capitalism. what existed in the USSR and other "Communist" countries is no plausible aim for building a movement.

[pranabjyoti]

NONE OF THE ABOVE. In my opinion, the greatest barrier to revolution (if it is about US) is the Asian immigrants. Though, I myself is an Indian, BUT IS A WORLDWIDE FACT THAT ALL OVER THE WORLD, INDIAN IMMIGRANTS ARE "GOOD FELLOWS" TO ALL REACTIONARIES, FROM PIC BOTHA TO GEORGE BUSH. Due to their presence, labor movement in US can not heighten as they become the alternative of bourgeoisie during the time of labor struggle. Moreover, their submissive nature is also a great barrier, even when they are part of trade unions. Wage in US is much less in comparison to European countries due to the presence of the immigrants and mostly due to their submissive nature, they are ready to join at a mere wage and worse working condition. Until and unless this flow of immigrants can not be stopped, there is very little chance of revolution in US.

[Robocommie]

NONE OF THE ABOVE. In my opinion, the greatest barrier to revolution (if it is about US) is the Asian immigrants. Though, I myself is an Indian, BUT IS A WORLDWIDE FACT THAT ALL OVER THE WORLD, INDIAN IMMIGRANTS ARE "GOOD FELLOWS" TO ALL REACTIONARIES, FROM PIC BOTHA TO GEORGE BUSH. Due to their presence, labor movement in US can not heighten as they become the alternative of bourgeoisie during the time of labor struggle. Moreover, their submissive nature is also a great barrier, even when they are part of trade unions. Wage in US is much less in comparison to European countries due to the presence of the immigrants and mostly due to their submissive nature, they are ready to join at a mere wage and worse working condition. Until and unless this flow of immigrants can not be stopped, there is very little chance of revolution in US.

You just want us to outright stop Asian immigration to the US? That seems like a rather... pro-nationalist attitude. How can you say that when you're Indian yourself?

[Kléber]

Yeah, immigrants might journey to imperialist countries with reactionary ideology, but they have always been in the vanguard of revolutionary struggles. Look at the Language Federations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_federation) of a century ago. Also, even if it were logically true that they drive down wages and "steal" jobs, that undermines the privileges of the white "labor aristocracy" and makes the social conditions more revolutionary for everybody.

[syndicat]

with regard to immigrants and their consciousness in the imperialist countries they move to, it can make a difference what class they were a part of in their home country. often Asian (including Indian) immigrants to the US are from middle or upper class families in their home country. This may incline them to an elitist mentality to start with.

on the other hand, there are immigrants who are not from the more privileged classes in their home countries, and in some cases bring with them experience of union and other struggles in their home country. this is sometimes the case with Latino immigrants for example.

in the USA immigrants often seem to playing a positive role because a lot of working class organizing is occuring among immigrants, and they are showing a willingness to organize and fight back. perhaps the most spectacular example is the 2006 May 1 general strike for immigrant rights in the USA.

[InuyashaKnight]

I think infighting in the left and fake fear produced by righwigers and their media.

[S.Artesian]

If I might offer another perspective--

The greatest obstacle is the fact that since 1973, the working class has pretty much had the snot kicked out of it-- through unemployment, industrial downsizing and outsizing in the advanced countries, "maquilladora-ization" in the developing countries.

In 1973, 2 signature events mark the beginning of the bourgeoisie's offensive-- Pinochet in Chile, and OPEC's first jack of the price of oil [I call it OPEC 1]-- these events announced the great attack on the organization, numbers, and living standards of workers. Certainly there has been resistance, the LIP strike in France, Turin and the hot autumn in Italy, UK miners and power workers strike in 1974, but not effective resistance-- see those same examples.

Anyway, the attack intensifies under Reagan, Thatcher and has not abated since then-- despite the "expansion" of the 1993-1999 period, an expansion that was an expansion only in comparison to the Reagan, Thatcher era, not in comparison to the 70s, much less the 60s.

The 90s recovery, of course, was accompanied by a great attack upon and defeat of the workers, with the crumbling of the last remaining vestiges of the Russian Revolution.

And then we get Reagan and Thatcher's idiot stepson, that is to say the idiot offspring of idiots adopted by other idiots, Bush 2 and massive dispersal and dissolution of the numbers, and wages, of workers.

So its the legacy of those defeats that "weighs like a nightmare on the brain of the living" to borrow from Karl.

Where is there an agency to reverse this? Well, comrade Pranabjyoti to the contrary not withstanding-- it's in the immigrant workers, both internal and external migrant laborers. Here in the US, of course, the South-West Asian migrant workers are a very small portion of the migrant labor force, with the overwhelming majority being from Mexico and Central America. I don't know the numbers for the EU, but I suspect the South-West Asian migrant workers are not the majority.

So there's my view, FWIW.

[pranabjyoti]

You just want us to outright stop Asian immigration to the US? That seems like a rather... pro-nationalist attitude. How can you say that when you're Indian yourself?
I can say that because I am an Indian myself and know Indian mentality well. Basically this kind of mentality arises from feudal society, where the authority has been worshiped as something God. In India, the general people (most are not rich or upper-class) often blame workers on strike for going against their God, the industrial, who is supplying food and cloth and other living materials. What the workers in return doing is just to serve the GOD. THAT IS THE TYPICAL INDIAN MENTALITY.

[Robocommie]

I can say that because I am an Indian myself and know Indian mentality well. Basically this kind of mentality arises from feudal society, where the authority has been worshiped as something God. In India, the general people (most are not rich or upper-class) often blame workers on strike for going against their God, the industrial, who is supplying food and cloth and other living materials. What the workers in return doing is just to serve the GOD. THAT IS THE TYPICAL INDIAN MENTALITY.

See, it may be one thing for you to say this, but in the US we're a white cultural majority nation. If we started to agitate to keep out all Indians from the country because they make things worse for the rest of us, it'd attract charges of racism, and I'd find it hard to disagree. It'd be the same kind of sentiment as the folks who want to keep out Mexican immigrants because they drive down wages.

[pranabjyoti]

See, it may be one thing for you to say this, but in the US we're a white cultural majority nation. If we started to agitate to keep out all Indians from the country because they make things worse for the rest of us, it'd attract charges of racism, and I'd find it hard to disagree. It'd be the same kind of sentiment as the folks who want to keep out Mexican immigrants because they drive down wages.
Man, it's not the question of just driving down wages, but rather the question of reactionary mentality. So far, I know that Mexican and other immigrants from Latin America come from a separate background. In short, they don't bear the burden of dying feudal mentality and other hazards associated to it. Moreover, the Indians coming to US are from comparatively wealthy and upper class part of the society. If you are an US citizen, then I hope you can observe that most Indians around you are in the white collar jobs, which they prefer most and they like to be close to "whites" much more than other races. Kindly ask any black American you know, who has a little idea about Indian immigrants and he/she will tell you about Indian mentality well. Just observe and you will see how the Indians prefer to marry "whites" in comparison to other races. Indians were the favorites of George W Bush (both senior and junior).
I am not at all against immigrant rights. But, at least I can not tolerate grasping the fruits of labor of fighters, while trying to as close to reactionaries as possible and harming the labor movement at all. Immigrant rights and other human and labor rights are results of long struggle of struggling people. ONE (BOTH GROUP AND INDIVIDUAL) SHOULD BE CAPABLE TO ACHIEVE AND ENJOY THE FRUITS OF LABOR OF STRUGGLING PEOPLE.

[red cat]

See, it may be one thing for you to say this, but in the US we're a white cultural majority nation. If we started to agitate to keep out all Indians from the country because they make things worse for the rest of us, it'd attract charges of racism, and I'd find it hard to disagree. It'd be the same kind of sentiment as the folks who want to keep out Mexican immigrants because they drive down wages.

I think that comrade pranabjyoti is concentrating on the fact that the majority of Indians who make it to the US are quite rich and are mostly oppose the revolution. Probably he has had to face a certain amount of social discrimination from these bourgeois scoundrels due to his politics.

However, I would like to highlight the fact that the Indian proletariat, no matter where the counter-revolutionary elements go and settle, will make revolution. The bourgeois elements that migrate from India or any other third world country are not harmful for the American proletariat any more than the American bourgeoisie is.

Therefore whether a part of the third world bourgeoisie migrates to the first world or not is not of much concern to us.

[red cat]

I'm just saying that it's impossible to have a revolutionary movement which won't contain any elements that some would consider, or in fact may be revisionist. Diversity of opinion shouldn't be seen as the enemy, so it's not necessarily relevant if classical Leninism would be sufficient sans revisionism.

But what IS classical Leninism? It's my understanding that that is a highly disputed subject amongst the tendencies.

Diversity of opinion differs from purposefully slowing down political procedures, sabotaging and engaging in acts of terrorism. This is what revisionists do. Therefore, if the party cannot fight revisionism continuously, it is bound to collapse.

Lenin did not live to witness class struggle during the consolidation of socialism. Hence the Leninist mass line is incomplete and it also says nothing about having a series of revolutions until communism. By classical Leninism, I mean Marxism-Leninism without this qualitative completion, that is, without the full mass line and the theory of cultural revolution.

[LETSFIGHTBACK]

I think apathy has a lot to do with it and the basic ignorance of most people that there could be a system better than the one we currently have. It is a shame but the average American is incapable of seeing beyond his immediate conditions and environment and although he may not be content with this status quo, he is conditioned to believe that our capitalist system is the best possible of any other options.



You are soooooo right.We have to have the most dumb, ignorant,politically Illiterate population on the face of the earth.And left says,[ALWAYS ARGUE WITH VARIOUS GROUPS ABOUT THIS] the workers will come around. I don't romanicize the workers.they are pragmatic. they have NO IMAGINATION, THEY CAN'T SEE PAST THEIR NOSE. THEY HAVE NO VALUE IN IDEAS,THEY JUST KEEP GOING BACK AND FORTH FROM UNREGULATED CAPITALISM TO KEYNESIANISM, REPUBLICAN TO DEMOCRAT.I have have no hope in the american people. they couldn't lead a one man parade.

[Timebomb]

Sky/fox

[syndicat]

there is an element of truth in what he says about the mentality of Indian immigrants to U.S....not all, but some. when I worked at a large computer company the divisional director was a dark complected Indian man. my office mate was an African-American. the managers engaged in racist hassling of my office mate til he quit.

on the other hand, at that same company, I later had a boss who was an Indian immigrant woman, daughter of a famous Indian writer, who was highly progressive in her views, and let us basically self-manage the department. Not authoritarian at all. Also, she had a great sense of humor.

but, as a poster pointed out above, immigrants from Mexico and Central America are dominant. those from the Indian subcontinent are a small minority of immigrants. Filipino immigrants, who are also from southeast Asia, are overwelmingly working class in the city where I live and tend to have progressive views.

[Angry Young Man]

Where's political apathy?

[pranabjyoti]

there is an element of truth in what he says about the mentality of Indian immigrants to U.S....not all, but some. when I worked at a large computer company the divisional director was a dark complected Indian man. my office mate was an African-American. the managers engaged in racist hassling of my office mate til he quit.

on the other hand, at that same company, I later had a boss who was an Indian immigrant woman, daughter of a famous Indian writer, who was highly progressive in her views, and let us basically self-manage the department. Not authoritarian at all. Also, she had a great sense of humor.

but, as a poster pointed out above, immigrants from Mexico and Central America are dominant. those from the Indian subcontinent are a small minority of immigrants. Filipino immigrants, who are also from southeast Asia, are overwelmingly working class in the city where I live and tend to have progressive views.
The first one, not the second is the REAL example of Indians, to be more precise general middle and upper middle class Indians. Being an Indian from the same background, I can say it better perhaps from all comrades here.

[pranabjyoti]

Another big barrier before the revolution, specially in the developed nations is the fact that the workers in those state thinking that socialism can not offer more to them. Actually, the health care and education and other social service system is much better in Cuba than USA, but still Cuba can not hold as an exemplary case before the workers of USA and Canada.
In my opinion, the reason behind is lack of technological and scientific development in countries worldwide, where revolution has taken place. After 1917, Lenin and later Stalin understood that well and they are trying their best to overcome the barrier, they welcome nearly any kind of scientific development and tried their best to bring that development to the production level. After the revolution, Lenin very quickly realized the potential of research by Ivan Michurin. There are records that he personally inquires about the new developments of science and technology and often himself meet with the scientists. Stalin also continued this process and for that reason, he realized the potential of the idea by a young engineer Mikhail Kuskin, which at the end resulted in T-34. During the WWII, scientific and technological achievements other than the T-34 was also behind the victory of USSR over Germany. I am just imagining, if Internet exist in those times, Hitler and his army would bounce back even before entering Minsk, much ahead of Stalingrad or Leningrad. But, due to heavy losses in WWII and after Stalin, this trend had been slowed down and gradually USSR fall behind the imperialist nations during the Khrushchev and Brezhnev era and also later on. Instead of internationalist inclination, Russian chauvinistic attitude takes the place which continually degrades the scientific and technological advancements of USSR.
Latin America now is a very fertile place for revolution and revolutionary activities, but still that kind of nationalist mentality still reigns there. In my opinion, another international consortium is much more needed than a Fifth International or something like that. If some kind of good breakthroughs can be achieved by that group, that can act as better example for the workers of the developed world to revolt against the system.
I am pretty sure, with proper cooperation and sufficient funding, breakthroughs aren't far away things and those can act as the sparking plugs of revolutions worldwide.

[Thirsty Crow]

In my opinion, there are many obstacles, significant ones. Maybe the author of the poll should have mentioned "all of the above mentioned" as an option.

I would divide these obstacles into two broad categories: inherent to the revolutionary movement and inherent to the cultural AND socioeconomic background.

As far as the movement is concerned, revleft perfectly demonstrates how sectarianism is akin to the plague. We cannot really expect to be taken as a serious social and political option, indeed the human option (in the sense of overcoming historical conditions which still persist) when some clans argue like children. In my opinion, the persistence of stalinism here plays an important role as well. The USSR is a matter of (tragic) history, while communism is a matter of possibility and of future.
The solution to this problem would concern certain cross-sectarian allegiances which are in fact a matter of necessity IF the agency of parties is understood as aiding the worker's autonomous struggle and providing education and certain communal non-profit services and upholding solidarity on the local level, as well as national and international. The goal should not be that OUR tendency prevails, but that workers, indeed humanity prevails and outgrows existing conditions of exploitation, domination and inequality.

The second category could encompass a vast array of phenomena in contemporary western societies (I do not claim to understand the conditions in the rest of the world, for instance, in Nepal where Maoists fight).
Maybe the most important factor is the collapse of the USSR which led to the famous proclamation about the end of history. But it also led to a massive reaction against mere prospects of a communist society, as evidenced in post-communist societies in which it amounts to slander to call someone a communist. The most important problem is that the model of the Soviet Union is presented (by conservatives, liberals and stalinists alike) as the only possible and conceivable mode of socialism. And the first thing that comes to mind is the gulag, massive executions, and the overall lack of civil liberties. Such an image is reproduced culturally by various groups of people, as I've mentioned, and the only thing that can counter this trend is, IMO, successful and honest practice and solid theory which would reject the tenets of "state capitalism".
At the same time, western culture upholds a specific vision of freedom which is encompassed under the term "economic freedom". Many people I've spoken with stress the possibility that the "next step", after stripping away the freedom of entrepreneurship, will be to outlaw certain personal and civil liberties as such.
All in all, within a culture which upholds a type of individualism and personal freedom, we should strive to a continuous creation of a counter-culture which would present the society as a whole with a new, egalitarian vision of freedom.

[Agnapostate]

The solution to this problem would concern certain cross-sectarian allegiances which are in fact a matter of necessity IF the agency of parties is understood as aiding the worker's autonomous struggle and providing education and certain communal non-profit services and upholding solidarity on the local level, as well as national and international. The goal should not be that OUR tendency prevails, but that workers, indeed humanity prevails and outgrows existing conditions of exploitation, domination and inequality.

I might have agreed with you a year ago. Now I realize that the only realm in which various self-described socialists will find agreement is in that of such deliberately ambiguous principles that avoid hard substance by design. Anyone can speak of “humanity prevailing” or of “outgrowing existing conditions of exploitation, domination and inequality.” Ambiguous descriptions are akin to distant visual perceptions; some vague, indistinct impression can be received, but not much more. As with visual perceptions, distance obfuscates clarity. The Sun can be blocked behind your thumb, yet you would certainly find this to be different if you were somehow a mere hundred thousand miles away from it. Two mountains that appear to be alongside each other a hundred miles away may have a significant distance between them. The same is true for all ostensibly “socialist” philosophies promoted on this forum. Their proponents have all sworn fealty to the same abstract principles, but reveal specific platforms and policies that are at sharp odds with each other and are ultimately irreconcilable.

As I said, though, this shouldn’t be taken as a sectarian denial that collaboration between all these various factions is possible. It’s merely a matter of acknowledging, however, that this is due to the shared anti-capitalism of the various sects rather than the shared socialism, since many will invariably accuse others of not being socialist at all. In its proper context, I’ve been emphatic about the fact that I don’t regard Leninism as socialism or Marxism, and that there are problems in Marxist organizational theory that render it conducive to corruption, unlike anarchist organizational theory. I’ve never sprinted across the board constantly shouting that, since that would raise pointless sectarian conflict for no reason. The point is that we are united in our anti-capitalism, or at least, our anti-corporate market capitalism, if not our anti-state capitalism.

[Jacobinist]

"but, as a poster pointed out above, immigrants from Mexico and Central America are dominant." - Synd

What does that suppose to mean? I would kick your face in if I could!

Nah Im just kidding Synd. But I am curious to hear what you consider dominant in Meso-american culture?

[Jacobinist]

"The point is that we are united in our anti-capitalism, or at least, our anti-corporate market capitalism, if not our anti-state capitalism." - Agna

I've tried to make that point several times, oddly, no one ever responds. I even started a new thread in it, you know in good spirit, and still nothing. http://www.revleft.com/vb/21st-century-socialism-t131802/index.html

But if I were to say something negative about, who could we use as an example, oh lets just say Stalin, I would be flooded with angry messages/bad reputation points by a platoon of cyber-revolutionaries using their laptops wi-fi capability in a sub-urban In-N-Out.

Personally, there aren't many revolutionaries in teh first world. We just have it too damn good. Now on the other hand, if you're father and older brother had been shot down out in the coca fields by a some right-wing paramilitary group, maybe then you could be a revolutionary.

[Comrade_Scott]

i would have to say infighting, people on the left fight constantly about who has the right "brand" and that leads to a blinked view on things. i know this is idealistic but if we could just unite and place our common goals ahead of our "narrow" view i think half the problem would be solved.

we could then solve the next biggest problem which is the world view, a united front provides a better unit to dispel lied rather than being divided and feeding the fire of the right and far right enemies.

[MaoTseHelen]

The biggest barrier is the lack of a spark. People need a good reason to throw all in.

[Jacobinist]

Were not organized. They are.

[Stand Your Ground]

Definitely anti-commie propaganda, even more so here in the states. Followed by capitalism at a close 2nd.

All these damn commies wanna take our money... :rolleyes:

[Jacobinist]

This seems relavent:


Are Americans Too Broken by Corporate Power to Resist?

http://www.alternet.org/media/146128/are_americans_too_broken_by_corporate_power_to_res ist

[Ztrain]

We outnumber the fascists CURRENTLY...Those movements will never gain speed unless they can lose the swastikas,which they wont because they are just retards who use hate to deal with gay tendecies/impotencesmall penises ect.

[Ztrain]

Yes,I truly believe that the necessary steps to fight these people is to make homosexuality acceptable...these people choose to hate because they cant cope with their :reda:homoerotic tendecies.