The General view of Revleft

[Velheka]

Hello! Although it looks like I'm new I've been lurking for quite a while now. But I wanted to know, what is the general Communistic view on the forums? Leninism? Stalinism? Libertarian? I'm personally a Libertarian Communist but I wanted to find out.


With regards

~Vel

[Weezer]

Last chit chat survey results:

http://i50.tinypic.com/2itn9rt.jpg

I'm a Trot by the way. :cool:

[danyboy27]

non-dotrinaire communism.

in b4 the sectarian bullshit, the name of stalin have been pronounced, i dont expect this thread to live long.

[Leonid Brozhnev]

non-dotrinaire communism.

Ftw :thumbup1: Try to keep away from the sectarian shit as much as much as I can.

[infraxotl]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?do=grouplist&pp=20&dofilter=1&cat=3&sort=members

Because of some kind of freakish miracle, all the anarchists are in one group instead of splintered into a million pieces. You can't really expect much unity from the trotskyite types unless they're shrieking about "Stalinism", either. Combined, they probably make the bulk of the posts on these forums because Marxist-Leninists seem to have lives or jobs or something.

[Sam_b]

You can't really expect much unity from the trotskyite types

Despite, like the anarchists, they are also in one group.

[Zanthorus]

From experience, practically everyone will say that all the other ideologies post more on the board and that their own ideology is outnumbered.

[Lyev]

Views here are generally very heterogeneous, but at the same time I'm willing to work with pretty much any tendency because we all share the same end-goal.

[dearest chuck]

i think you'll find we run the whole gamut from youthful anticommunism (i.e., anarchism) to youthful neoconservatism (i.e., trotskyism).

welcome! :)

[Weezer]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?do=grouplist&pp=20&dofilter=1&cat=3&sort=members

Because of some kind of freakish miracle, all the anarchists are in one group instead of splintered into a million pieces. You can't really expect much unity from the trotskyite types unless they're shrieking about "Stalinism", either. Combined, they probably make the bulk of the posts on these forums because Marxist-Leninists seem to have lives or jobs or something.

oh ok buddy

[F9]

i think you'll find we run the whole gamut from youthful anticommunism (i.e., anarchism) to youthful neoconservatism (i.e., trotskyism).

welcome! :)

oh god, so much stupidity in just one sentence."good job", not many could do that.
Fuck off with stupid comments like this in fucking learning.Keep your stupiditys outside learning, especially when its s stupid and naive lies.

[Glenn Beck]

Revleft is an anarcho-stalinist hegemony

[Pretty Flaco]

Views here are generally very heterogeneous, but at the same time I'm willing to work with pretty much any tendency because we all share the same end-goal.

And that's how it should be. Nobody can agree on every little detail: but it's still possible to unite in pursuit of the common goal.

[infraxotl]

oh ok buddy

Here's a good example of just how petty trotskyite splintering can be, like "bolshevik-leninists", "leninists" believe that trotsky's main purpose in life wasn't opposing bolsheviks and publishing long-winded pamphlets filled with lies about real revolutionaries like Lenin.

[Lyev]

Here's a good example of just how petty trotskyite splintering can be, like "bolshevik-leninists", "leninists" believe that trotsky's main purpose in life wasn't opposing bolsheviks and publishing long-winded pamphlets filled with lies about real revolutionaries like Lenin.Trotsky wasn't a member of the Bolshevik party, nor did he help build the party, nor was he a valuable exponent of Marxism, nor did help lead the Red Army, nor did he theorize about fascism, China, trade-unions, Stalin, peasantry, capitalism, socialism, feudalism or the proletariat; he was a vile opportunist and counter-revolutionary! I hate him! :mad:

[Zanthorus]

Here's a good example of just how petty trotskyite splintering can be, like "bolshevik-leninists", "leninists" believe that trotsky's main purpose in life wasn't opposing bolsheviks and publishing long-winded pamphlets filled with lies about real revolutionaries like Lenin.

He started off his career in the RSDLP under Lenin's personal tutelage and about his rejoining the Bolsheviks in 1917 Lenin said that since then there had been no better Bolshevik. He was one of the first Russian Marxists to take the initiative and make his way back to Russia out of exile when he heard about Bloody Sunday - Lenin only returned when the October Manifesto had been issued. He was vice-chairman and then chairman of the Petrograd soviet. He led the Military-Revolutionary Committee which carried out the overthrow of the Provisional Government and he was of major importance in founding the Red army.

I'm not exactly the biggest fan of Trotsky either but you might try coming up with some decent criticisms of the man instead of spouting garbage.

[Comrade Gwydion]

in b4 the sectarian bullshit, the name of stalin have been pronounced, i dont expect this thread to live long.


q. E. D.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Great! Let's turn this thread into another anti vs. pro Trotsky wank session!

[scarletghoul]

Hello! Although it looks like I'm new I've been lurking for quite a while now. But I wanted to know, what is the general Communistic view on the forums? Leninism? Stalinism? Libertarian? I'm personally a Libertarian Communist but I wanted to find out.


With regards

~Vel
A roughly even mixture of them all really.

And everyone else stop ruining learning lol

[Glenn Beck]

And everyone else stop ruining learning lol

Implying learning is ever anything other than this

[infraxotl]

He started off his career in the RSDLP under Lenin's personal tutelage and about his rejoining the Bolsheviks in 1917 Lenin said that since then there had been no better Bolshevik. He was one of the first Russian Marxists to take the initiative and make his way back to Russia out of exile when he heard about Bloody Sunday - Lenin only returned when the October Manifesto had been issued. He was vice-chairman and then chairman of the Petrograd soviet. He led the Military-Revolutionary Committee which carried out the overthrow of the Provisional Government and he was of major importance in founding the Red army.

I'm not exactly the biggest fan of Trotsky either but you might try coming up with some decent criticisms of the man instead of spouting garbage.

He was a good Bolshevik when he acted like one. Unfortunately, Trotskyites aren't Bolsheviks. They swallow up all of the man's alt-history fictions and counter-revolutionary "theories".

[Lyev]

Great! Let's turn this thread into another anti vs. pro Trotsky wank session!But he started it! :(

[Lyev]

He was a good Bolshevik when he acted like one. Unfortunately, Trotskyites aren't Bolsheviks. They swallow up all of the man's alt-history fictions and counter-revolutionary "theories".Ok, firstly, stop calling us "Trotskyites", it's a pejorative; I don't mind refraining from calling you a "Stalinist" from now on. Let's please try and keep this civil. I would probably consider myself a "Bolshevik", in that I uphold many of the theories espoused by Lenin and Trotsky. And if this is going rise above being a sectarian pissing-contest, could you try and order your thoughts a bit more clearly, and expand upon simple one-liners, so we can actually have a nice, civil discussion? Where exactly does your qualm with Trotskyism lie? If you engage me and others in the thread politely then that's how you can expect to be treated.

[Blackscare]

The general view of revleft is that it's better to spend one's time in endless self-referential debate than actively work together to present a show of strength to the world and restore any semblance of faith that the Left can return.

Makes sense, really.

[RED DAVE]

Views here are generally very heterogeneous, but at the same time I'm willing to work with pretty much any tendency because we all share the same end-goal.The situation is that class struggle has just begun to heat up world-wide. The rampant sectarian of former years will fade away as a few groups or tendencies demonstrate to be skilled as leaders in the class struggle while other tendencies will practice the fine art of selling out (while keeping themselves rhetorically clean).

Time and the class struggle will tell.

RED DAVE

[the last donut of the night]

Revleft is an anarcho-stalinist hegemony

d00d itz all about teh ANARCHO-TROTSKYITE DICTATORSHIP

[Obs]

I like Trotsky and Stalin.

[Nolan]

I like Hitler

[Adi Shankara]

I used to label myself but stopped that crap after I realized that it created more problems with other communists than with capitalists. that is a real issue in itself.

[mikelepore]

And that's how it should be. Nobody can agree on every little detail: but it's still possible to unite in pursuit of the common goal.

How would you phrase that common goal? I don't mean a name or a word for it. Can you give a short description in a couple lines?

[ContrarianLemming]

I liked to think anarchists were a slim minority and all the big heads were leninists. Turns out almost all of the admins are anarchists and the bggest group is an anarchist one..

I miss the days when I thought I was an underdog.

looking foward to lording it over leninists

[ContrarianLemming]

How would you phrase that common goal? I don't mean a name or a word for it. Can you give a short description in a couple lines?

err..
communism

[Nolan]

I liked to think anarchists were a slim minority and all the big heads were leninists. Turns out almost all of the admins are anarchists and the bggest group is an anarchist one..

I miss the days when I thought I was an underdog.

looking foward to lording it over leninists

Fuck, stormfront pwns us all.

[DaComm]

err..
communism

Mike believes in a different type of Communism than many. He and many like him support the variation of distribution known to us as "From each according to his contribution", or hourly pay. Others support free access, so to say that we all support a common goal is incorrect.

[Nachie]

http://i50.tinypic.com/2itn9rt.jpg


Are you fuckin' tellin me there's actually a little purple blob of people out there who are Hoxhaists?

[mikelepore]

Mike believes in a different type of Communism than many. He and many like him support the variation of distribution known to us as "From each according to his contribution", or hourly pay. Others support free access, so to say that we all support a common goal is incorrect.

I also support the use of legal and peaceful methods exclusively, in countries where the political structure provides for fundamental changes pending only the enlightenment of the public. In the U.S. I propose enacting a constitutional amendment that would say the control of the industries and services is transferred to workers' organizations, without compensation to the previous owners.

I also don't make any use of concepts about eliminating "the state." I believe the topic conveys no information. In practice it amounts to saying whatever departments of the state we find to be unnecessary, such as oppression and militarism, let's call them "the state", and whichever departments of the state we find to be necessary, such as reasonable laws and their enforcement, let's not call them "the state." Therefore, by saying anything about "the state" versus a "stateless" society, there's an illusion of adding something new, when it's really just a juggling of symbols for previous ideas.

[Stephen Colbert]

The general view of revleft is that it's better to spend one's time in endless self-referential debate than actively work together to present a show of strength to the world and restore any semblance of faith that the Left can return.

Makes sense, really.


This.

And cool neon revolutionary avatars

[Fietsketting]

I liked to think anarchists were a slim minority and all the big heads were leninists. Turns out almost all of the admins are anarchists and the bggest group is an anarchist one..

I miss the days when I thought I was an underdog.

looking foward to lording it over leninists

We we're the underdog and broke the fictional windows of revleft and now we are in charge! Har!

[ComradeOm]

Are you fuckin' tellin me there's actually a little purple blob of people out there who are Hoxhaists?1) Note the numbers on the vertical axis. This is not a particularly large sample size

2) The survey was conducted in Chit-Chat. I'm surprised that 'Anarcho-Pol-Potism' is represented

[ckaihatsu]

Mike believes in a different type of Communism than many. He and many like him support the variation of distribution known to us as "From each according to his contribution", or hourly pay. Others support free access, so to say that we all support a common goal is incorrect.





I also support the use of legal and peaceful methods exclusively, in countries where the political structure provides for fundamental changes pending only the enlightenment of the public. In the U.S. I propose enacting a constitutional amendment that would say the control of the industries and services is transferred to workers' organizations, without compensation to the previous owners.


Hmmmmmm, and we *all* know how Reconstruction in the U.S. ended up....





I also don't make any use of concepts about eliminating "the state." I believe the topic conveys no information. In practice it amounts to saying whatever departments of the state we find to be unnecessary, such as oppression and militarism, let's call them "the state", and whichever departments of the state we find to be necessary, such as reasonable laws and their enforcement, let's not call them "the state." Therefore, by saying anything about "the state" versus a "stateless" society, there's an illusion of adding something new, when it's really just a juggling of symbols for previous ideas.


But what, exactly, would be the *social basis* of this new un-state state? Workers' organizations? -- Workers' organizations that have cordially been formally accepted by the U.S. Constitution? And why would such rank-and-file workers' organizations *need* to be legitimized or in coordination / cooperation in any way with a bourgeois-initiated political institution?

Would these workers' organizations happen to exist in similar composition *outside* of the U.S., too? Would *they* be in trans-national cooperation, perchance, perhaps according to their *common class interests* -- ??? -- !!!

So then why would the international proletariat need to coordinate / cooperate with *any* formulation of the U.S. state -- ??? -- !!!

[mikelepore]

Hmmmmmm, and we *all* know how Reconstruction in the U.S. ended up....

But what, exactly, would be the *social basis* of this new un-state state? Workers' organizations? -- Workers' organizations that have cordially been formally accepted by the U.S. Constitution?

I believe economic planning should be handled by workers' organizations in their ordinary cellular or nested form, for example, mine workers managing the mines, medical workers managing the hospitals, etc. Economic decisions that are inter-industrial should be made by committees where where representatives from several or all industries are combined.

I believe matters of legislation and law enforcement should be handled by a public democracy, not a workers' democracy. In the case of a conflict between the two, the public democracy should be a higher authority than the workers' democracy.


And why would such rank-and-file workers' organizations *need* to be legitimized or in coordination / cooperation in any way with a bourgeois-initiated political institution?

One reason is that the political process is the measurement instrument that tells everyone what the majority of the people want. We can't just say that, even if socialists still have so little support that we don't see socialist candidates getting elected to legislative offices, nevertheless we still claim that the majority of the people want socialism. To say that would be like arguing with a thermometer about what we think the temperature probably is.

The second reason is that there is no possible way to adopt socialism without the idea of socialism first becoming the law. The revolutionary workers can't effectively say, "Hey, you police departments, please ignore this and do nothing while we seize the means of production. Just go on playing your checkers game at the police station." The workers would get hit by machine gun fire so fast they wouldn't know what hit them, and those workers who survive the gunfire would be living under fascism by the next morning. The only feasible method is to begin by taking control of the political process.


Would these workers' organizations happen to exist in similar composition *outside* of the U.S., too? Would *they* be in trans-national cooperation, perchance, perhaps according to their *common class interests* -- ??? -- !!!

So then why would the international proletariat need to coordinate / cooperate with *any* formulation of the U.S. state -- ??? -- !!!

I'm not sure what you're saying. I assume you're asking what my idea of internationalism is.

I believe that whenever any two or more countries adopt socialism they should very soon, preferably immediately, merge into a single political and economic system, and, if they are physically adjacent and there is a boundary between them, dismantle it. After that is done 200 times, all national boundaries on earth will be gone.

The people in the individual countries that led up to this result will have probably needed to use different methods, according to the political systems that they needed to respond to: in one country, pass a constitutional amendment, in another country, chop off the heads of an aristocracy, etc.

[revolution inaction]

If you sort the groups by number of members then the anarchists out number the trots and the stalinist put together (assuming a larg overlap between the different stalinist groups)

http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?do=grouplist&pp=20&dofilter=1&cat=3&sort=members

[ckaihatsu]

Economic decisions that are inter-industrial should be made by committees where where representatives from several or all industries are combined.

I believe matters of legislation and law enforcement should be handled by a public democracy, not a workers' democracy. In the case of a conflict between the two, the public democracy should be a higher authority than the workers' democracy.


The *existence* of a "public democracy" alongside that of a workers' democracy *is* a conflict, fundamentally. What would be the *social basis* of a "public democracy", if not the workers' democracy / workers' control of the means of mass production -- ?

So either the 'public democracy' would be redundant or else it would have to have a *different* social basis from that of the workers' democracy -- inviting back in a privileged, elitist sector of society that would readily bill themselves as "the public".





One reason is that the political process is the measurement instrument that tells everyone what the majority of the people want.


If your only concern is ascertaining the prevailing mass political sentiment, that's *not* a biggie. We're *all* in the mix, and in politics either certain things can be done, or else they can't. Note the (eventual) collapse of the neoconservative wing, and of the Republicans generally, after public discontentment built up during both Bush terms. (The neocons *wanted* to go after Iran, North Korea, etc., but they've effectively been denied.)





The second reason is that there is no possible way to adopt socialism without the idea of socialism first becoming the law.


This is entirely too formalistic and carries with it the hazard of putting the cart before the horse -- what should happen is for workers to *take power* and then let the decaying formal structures *note* the phenomenon with their formalism.





I believe that whenever any two or more countries adopt socialism they should very soon, preferably immediately, merge into a single political and economic system, and, if they are physically adjacent and there is a boundary between them, dismantle it. After that is done 200 times, all national boundaries on earth will be gone.


Yeah -- this is more like it...!

[mikelepore]

The *existence* of a "public democracy" alongside that of a workers' democracy *is* a conflict, fundamentally. What would be the *social basis* of a "public democracy", if not the workers' democracy / workers' control of the means of mass production -- ?

So either the 'public democracy' would be redundant or else it would have to have a *different* social basis from that of the workers' democracy -- inviting back in a privileged, elitist sector of society that would readily bill themselves as "the public".

Could you possibly stuff a little more hyperbole into that post?

Are you serious? You really need someone to explain to you the difference between a decision that needs to be made by the workers and a decision that needs to be made by the public, and the need to have both?

Take, for example, a kitchen knife.

(1) Proposal: One percent manganese shall be added to the steel alloy in the knife, implementing a study that showed that this formula will give the steel greater reliability.

That is an industrial decision. It should be made by the workers in the cutlery manufacturing industry.

(2) Proposal: It shall be prohibited to throw a knife as a projectile in a crowded place, which may result in injury.

That is a public decision. It should be made by all adult members of society. Workers' occupations are irrelevant. The experts in cutlery metallurgy have no special significance in this issue.

[ckaihatsu]

Are you serious? You really need someone to explain to you the difference between a decision that needs to be made by the workers and a decision that needs to be made by the public, and the need to have both?


Look, Mike, you're talking about *civil* society. Can we just say that civil society would rest on the economic / societal foundation of the workers' democracy? This way we wouldn't even *need* specialized positions like police or militaries -- everyone would be able to participate in civil society as well as carrying out work-related roles.

It's too bad you're squeamish about facing down the institutionalized physical force of the state -- it really pales in size compared to the international proletariat. Our task is one of building *class consciousness*. Nothing can defeat *that*.

[MarxSchmarx]

C Kaihatsu and mikelepore please please please try to keep this ontopic, otherwise your posts will have to be split to a new thread.

Also:


I like Hitler

I dont care if this a joke. It isn't in the least bit funny. And even if it were this is unacceptable.

If it were up to me I'd march your ass to an old folks home where you can repeat this sorry attempt at humor to people with numbers tattooed on their arms.

Consider this a warning.

And don't give me that "srs bsns" crap.

[Stephen Colbert]

Look, Mike, you're talking about *civil* society. Can we just say that civil society would rest on the economic / societal foundation of the workers' democracy? This way we wouldn't even *need* specialized positions like police or militaries -- everyone would be able to participate in civil society as well as carrying out work-related roles.

It's too bad you're squeamish about facing down the institutionalized physical force of the state -- it really pales in size compared to the international proletariat. Our task is one of building *class consciousness*. Nothing can defeat *that*.

Whats with asterisks, are we like retarded or something and need to see the emphasis on the points in your dialect? :crying:

[ckaihatsu]

Whats with asterisks, are we like retarded or something and need to see the emphasis on the points in your dialect? :crying:


No, it's only for *your* benefit.


( 8^ /

[samofshs]

Last chit chat survey results:

http://i50.tinypic.com/2itn9rt.jpg

I'm a Trot by the way. :cool:
you can add in 30+ christian communists :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

[AK]

Are you fuckin' tellin me there's actually a little purple blob of people out there who are Hoxhaists?
In all fairness, that graph only shows one individual that identifies as a Hoxhaist.

However, there is a Hoxhaist usergroup here: http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=7

[mikelepore]

C Kaihatsu and mikelepore please please please try to keep this ontopic, otherwise your posts will have to be split to a new thread.

Sorry, chief. When the original post asked what the "general view" is, I thought our comments were part of answering the question. I see now that the original question seems to request a breakdown of the -ism labels. Others have provided that data better than I could.

[samofshs]

maybe we could poll using group memberships rather than just whoever uses the chitchat forum. would there be a way to do that?:confused:

[Blake's Baby]

I doubt it. Many people are members of different groups, and maybe not all 'Forkliftists' (to take a random example) would think it worthwhile to list that one as their main group in a serious survey, though they might very well in their profile.

I'm a Luxemburgist, who's also a member of the Left Communist group (due to similar political beliefs), the State Capitalist Theorist group (which is more of a theoretical group than a political tendency), the Free Access Communism group (also kinda theoretical), and the Jello Biafra fan group.

While my idea of communist theory does include both free access communism as a goal, and a recognition that the USSR was state capitalist, and my idea of my 'self' includes liking the Dead Kennedys, none of things really matter in a 'What are the various positions on RevLeft?'-kinda survey. Free access commnism is an idea common to many tendencies, a state capitalist analysis of the USSR likewise, and I believe my taste in music is fairly irrelevant.