Who is your Favorite Communist?

[LeftSideDown]

Mine has to be Gabriel Kolko for his book "The Triumph of Conservatism"... next time someone starts asking for more Regulation, its important, I think, to keep this book in mind.

Anyway, what about yours? (Optional: Name your favorite book by that guy).

[Comrade Marxist Bro]

Karl Marx.

[Zanthorus]

Um, Gabriel Kolko is not a Communist. He calls himself an "anti-capitalist" but he has written a whole book After Socialism spewing post-modernist garbage about how Marxism leads to Gulags because of it's "system building".

However the obvious answer to this question is Bordiga. Auschwitz, or the Great Alibi and his calls for "revolutionary totalitarianism" combine to make his work some of the hardest trolling of liberals known to man :D

[Os Cangaceiros]

I like Gabriel Kolko. But he's not a communist.

Anyway, it's gotta be Sergei Nechayev for me (peace be upon his name).

[Os Cangaceiros]

Auschwitz, or the Great Alibi

I think that's an interesting piece simply because it puts foward a different viewpoint from the standard lines on the Holocaust, but at the same time I think that it oversimplifies the complex interworkings between the economic base and the superstructure (i.e. between capitalism and national socialist ideology), which is a common symptom of some vulgar Marxist thought, IMO. I've taken several courses on German history, and the idea that the Holocaust happened purely on the basis of "economic re-adjustment" is just a tad mechanistic.

[#FF0000]

Um, Gabriel Kolko is not a Communist. He calls himself an "anti-capitalist" but he has written a whole book After Socialism spewing post-modernist garbage about how Marxism leads to Gulags because of it's "system building".

However the obvious answer to this question is Bordiga. Auschwitz, or the Great Alibi and his calls for "revolutionary totalitarianism" combine to make his work some of the hardest trolling of liberals known to man :D

Yeah, Bordiga owns.

[Adi Shankara]

Quite obviously, the late Thomas Sankara, former president of Burkina Faso.

[Zanthorus]

I think that it oversimplifies the complex interworkings between the economic base and the superstructure (i.e. between capitalism and national socialist ideology), which is a common symptom of some vulgar Marxist thought, IMO.

Yeah, that metaphor gets really abused to be honest. I think most people miss what Marx was trying to get at there, actually. The origins of the base/superstructure idea was in Hegel's distinction in the Philosophy of Right between "civil" and "political" society. The former was the realm of necessity where isolated individuals entered into various relations to meet their needs and the latter was the ethical life of the community where the particular interests of civil society are mediated by the "general interest" represented by the state. The first crucial point here is that for Hegel, civil society and political society are interconnected. You can't have one without the other. And the other crucial point is that in communism, or "true democracy" as Marx was calling it back when he made his critique of the Philosophy of Right, the two elements are transcended. Human needs are no longer met by isolated individuals grouped into family units but by associated producers who collectively appropriate the conditions of production according to a common plan. Marx turns Hegel's thing about the mediation of the particular interests by the general interest upside down by arguing that what's actually happening is the particular interests of the ruling classes are being enforced through the state as an illusory general interest. But in a society in which their are no antagonisms which spring from the social fabric itself then there is no need for this representation and the state as such dissapears. If you look closely at the elements of the superstructure named in the preface to the Contribution you'll notice all the things like religion, politics and philosophy which Marx thinks will dissapear in communism. This ties into one of Marx's broader themes about pre-communist societies as being societies where human beings are alienated and their own activity becomes a power standing over them whereas in communism human beings re-appropriate their powers as social powers and make history consciously, overcoming the alienation of class society. In an alienated world human activity controls the actors and humans become the object of history and not the subject. But communism as the conscious transformation of laws by human agency does away with the "pre-history" of man and innaugurates the real history where human beings become the subject.

[scarletghoul]

A tie between Huey P Newton and Mao Zedong.

[The Hong Se Sun]

A three way tie between 'CHE' Mao and Uncle Ho

[danyboy27]

Zizek and karl marx.

mostly zizek beccause is is funny and is sortof travelling worldwide and explaining to the world what communism is and why capitalism is an epic fail.

[danyboy27]

A three way tie between 'CHE' Mao and Uncle Ho
a three way with che mao and uncle ho....that is so naughty!

[Barry Lyndon]

I have a top ten:

1. Marx
2. Engels
3. Lenin
4. Luxemburg
5. Trotsky
6. Fidel Castro
7. Ho Chi Minh
8. Che
9. Sankara
10. Zizeck

I really like Hugo, but he's still alive and thus still had time to betray the revolution, so I reserve judgement on him.

[rednordman]

I would probably say Che and lenin, as they where both very awake to the painfull realities of attempting communism, in a world dominated by capitalism and imperialism.

They both where prominent to different time scales, but both legacies have definitly lasted the cause of time (whether good or terrible). Anyone else's ideas would have definitly been destroyed easy regardless of how placid, free and nice they where.

This isnt an attempt to defend Stalinism either, just I think that certain authoritarian aspects did infact prolonge the lifespan of socialistic systems, which would have been taken by most likely fascist counter-revolutions very simply because of the support from the rest of the world.

Mabey its just because Lenin and Che have proven that you can be progressive aswell as focusing on defence too. The same could be said about others, but most of them just went well over the top when it came to defence and national/civil security.

[Dean]

Myself.

[The Hong Se Sun]

I have a top ten:

1. Marx
2. Engels
3. Lenin
4. Luxemburg
5. Trotsky
6. Fidel Castro
7. Ho Chi Minh
8. Che
9. Sankara
10. Zizeck

I really like Hugo, but he's still alive and thus still had time to betray the revolution, so I reserve judgement on him.

If you get to have ten then I'm making one too but Marx and engles are give ins so I'm not putting them in.

1. 'CHE"
2. Ho chi Minh
3. Mao
4. Fred Hampton
5. Lenin
6. Fidel
7. Thomas sankara
8. De la O (some might say he wasn't a commie but FTW)
9. FIlberto Ojeda Rios
10. the young lords party

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filiberto_Ojeda_R%C3%ADos)

[Dermezel]

Caudwell

[Sam_b]

We should be taking information, inspiration, strategy and tactics from the plethora of communist/socialist/anarchist/anticapitalist theorists out there but isn't to rank them as 'favourite' or 'most valuable' defeating the point just a little bit?

As Dean says: myself.

[Raúl Duke]

Favorite Communist?

I would say Malatesta.

If you mean favorite Marxist...

I like the Italian Autonomists, Zizeck, and for a more relevant example some revleft posters (not sure they post anymore) from the WPNZ, Devrim, Prairie Fire, and maybe some other people on here but can't recall this morning.


FIlberto Ojeda Rios I doubt he's an actual communist much less a Marxist. He's foremost an independentista.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Yeah, that metaphor gets really abused to be honest. I think most people miss what Marx was trying to get at there, actually. The origins of the base/superstructure idea was in Hegel's distinction in the Philosophy of Right between "civil" and "political" society. The former was the realm of necessity where isolated individuals entered into various relations to meet their needs and the latter was the ethical life of the community where the particular interests of civil society are mediated by the "general interest" represented by the state. The first crucial point here is that for Hegel, civil society and political society are interconnected. You can't have one without the other. And the other crucial point is that in communism, or "true democracy" as Marx was calling it back when he made his critique of the Philosophy of Right, the two elements are transcended. Human needs are no longer met by isolated individuals grouped into family units but by associated producers who collectively appropriate the conditions of production according to a common plan. Marx turns Hegel's thing about the mediation of the particular interests by the general interest upside down by arguing that what's actually happening is the particular interests of the ruling classes are being enforced through the state as an illusory general interest. But in a society in which their are no antagonisms which spring from the social fabric itself then there is no need for this representation and the state as such dissapears. If you look closely at the elements of the superstructure named in the preface to the Contribution you'll notice all the things like religion, politics and philosophy which Marx thinks will dissapear in communism. This ties into one of Marx's broader themes about pre-communist societies as being societies where human beings are alienated and their own activity becomes a power standing over them whereas in communism human beings re-appropriate their powers as social powers and make history consciously, overcoming the alienation of class society. In an alienated world human activity controls the actors and humans become the object of history and not the subject. But communism as the conscious transformation of laws by human agency does away with the "pre-history" of man and innaugurates the real history where human beings become the subject.

I know that I can always count on you to tell me what Marx really meant. :lol:

[Hit The North]

My old lady.

[Bud Struggle]

I like Bakunin. Not only was he an aristocrat Anarcharist he also tried to swipe a McMansion from a fellow aristocrat Anarchist--add to that his wife had a boyfriend. It makes him seem quite the houndog.

It was at Minusio that Giovonni Antonio Marcacci(1769-1854) built La Baronata as a summer house. The building was bought by Mikhial Bakunin in 1873 with money he obtained from Carlo Cafiero. They planned that possession of the building would give Bakunin the status of a land-owner, helping him gain Swiss citizenship, and to provide premises for storing arms and providing accommodation in aid of the anarchist international. A second building was erected, a lake dug and a number of fruit trees planted. With the addition of a cow, a carriage and two horses, a milkmaid and a groom were employed. When Bakunin's wife, Antonia Kwiatkowska, was on her way there in July 1874, her lover, Carlo Gambuzzi informed her that the house had been bought through the abuse of Cafiero's generosity. On her arrival, Bakunin originally denied this and at first persuaded Cafiero to agree. However, on reflection, Cafiero told Bakunin on 15 July that he had indeed abused their friendship and that he would not spend any more money, thought or energy on La Baronata, rather devoting the fraction left of his inheritance on buying weapons for the proposed revolution in Italy. "The days following the 15th were a veritable hell" Bakunin later wrote. On 25 July Bakunin signed over the deeds of the building to Cafiero and resolved to die on the barricades in Bologna.



[Edit]

Here's another one of my favorites: Michael Laski. Seems he took all for the funds of his Communist Organization gambled them away in Las Vagas and then got into a gunfight about it.

Michael Laski was the founder of the Communist Party USA (Marxist-Leninist) a splinter group of the Communist Party USA. Laski had taken the side of China during the famous Sino-Soviet Split of the early 1960s, calling for a return to ruralism and direct agitation of capitalist countries and organizations. In order to raise funds for his group (which peaked at around 50 members), Laski notoriously spent a day gambling the organization's treasury on the roulette wheel in Las Vegas

The Communist Party USA (Marxist-Leninist) was a small Maoist Political Party in the United States. It was founded in 1965 by members of the Communist Party USA around Michael Laski who took the side of China in the Sino-Soviet Split. The party never grew and was disbanded amid a gunfight after Laski lost most of the group's funds while gambling at Las Vegas.

[9]

I like Bakunin.
[...] add to that his wife had a boyfriend.

I would too if I was married to that:

http://www.iwise.com/authorIcons/2021/Mikhail_Bakunin_128x128.png

*shudders*

[Blackscare]

I would too if I was married to that:

http://www.iwise.com/authorIcons/2021/Mikhail_Bakunin_128x128.png

*shudders*


Someone uses 420chan.

[9]

Someone uses 420chan.

I don't even know what that means?

[anticap]

I remain unconvinced of the communist credentials of many of the (in)famous people mentioned thus far.

Marx was a communist, and I like Marx a lot. Ditto Kropotkin. Those two have played a lot of tug-of-war in my head.

As for the above-ground, I'll tip my hat to the relatively-unknown-but-nonetheless-awesome Brendan M. Cooney (http://kapitalism101.wordpress.com/).

[Os Cangaceiros]

I like Bakunin. Not only was he an aristocrat Anarcharist

Most Russian radicals in Bakunin's time were from the aristocratic/middle class. Literacy certainly helps one be more responsive to socialist ideas.

[Victory]

I have a top ten:

1. Marx
2. Engels
3. Lenin
4. Luxemburg
5. Trotsky
6. Fidel Castro
7. Ho Chi Minh
8. Che
9. Sankara
10. Zizeck

I really like Hugo, but he's still alive and thus still had time to betray the revolution, so I reserve judgement on him.

Interesting... a few people on your list there are stunch supports of Joseph Stalin, notably Che Guevara. Yet you put Trotsky near the top of your list.

[Richard Nixon]

Fidel Castro-You can improve your nation dramatically without commiting mass murder.
Leon Trotsky-Got persecuted for fabricated reasons.

[Barry Lyndon]

Interesting... a few people on your list there are stunch supports of Joseph Stalin, notably Che Guevara. Yet you put Trotsky near the top of your list.

Che Guevara was a dedicated revolutionary who gave his life fighting against imperialism. My differences regarding the way he viewed Stalin are of secondary importance. Just because I admire someone doesn't mean I agree with 100% of everything they said or did.

Btw, its not a ranking, just a rough chronological order.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Karl Marx. He started it all. He is Socialism, IMO.

Tendencies come and go. Even Leninism (As distinct from orthodox, anti-revisionist Marxism-Leninism) which is seemingly supported by a majority of revolutionaries is something that is not absolutely neccessary to revolution.

An understanding of Marx and Marxism, the ideas that he spawned, are crucial to understanding how opposition to Capitalism might develop and how a Socialist society may come about.

The beauty of Marx is that one does not need to be a Marxist to subscribe to his general ideas and ideals. I would not call myself a Marxist, yet his methodology for Socialist revolution and for the ideals that Socialism would construct, the stateless society are ideas that will penetrate leftism forever. And one only needs a cursory glance at Kapital to see that the man's economics are sound and will work, one day.

[RGacky3]

Probably Debs.

[S.Artesian]

Favorite communist, utopian or scientific? Fourier, then.

Favorite Marxist? Marx, obviously.

Favorite revolutionist? Rosa Luxemburg, despite my deep disagreements with her Accumulation of Capital.

Favorite precursor(s) forerunners? The communards of the Great French Revolution, the enrages. More than honorable mention to the Diggers.

Those I'd most want with me on a picket line, in a strike, flying squad, or a military-revolutionary committee: League of Revolutionary Black Workers.

[S.Artesian]

Interesting... a few people on your list there are stunch supports of Joseph Stalin, notably Che Guevara. Yet you put Trotsky near the top of your list.

Shows he's not a sectarian, perhaps?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Favorite Marxist? Marx, obviously.



"I am not a Marxist" - Marx
:D

[Havet]

Peter Kropotkin aka "The Anarchist Prince"

[Zanthorus]

I know that I can always count on you to tell me what Marx really meant. :lol:

I'm not sure wether that's a good thing or a bad thing.

[The Hong Se Sun]

Favorite Communist?



I doubt he's an actual communist much less a Marxist. He's foremost an independentista.


It didn't say Marxist and he started a Socialist group the Machetero's also called the Ejército Popular Boricua. Even if people disagree FTW I'm keeping him there

[Raúl Duke]

You can keep him there if you want, but I'm just saying.

Los Macheteros are not explicitly a socialist group...they're an urban guerrilla group (now mostly defunct since 2005-2006) dedicated to independence. I'm not sure if they were very effective (they weren't no Young Lords or Black Panthers that's for sure) since their known major actions was robbing some money to fund themselves and the attempted destruction of military planes (more like the weathermen). While they might have allies in/support from Cuba, the group puts forward the cause of national liberation and makes little to no mention of socialism. Most national liberation groups however praise socialist countries, particularly (and mostly--only) Cuba, and their heroes (like Che Guevara).

There's only like 3 explicitly socialist groups in PR and only one is large and relevant enough (MST).

[Os Cangaceiros]

I'm not sure wether that's a good thing or a bad thing.

Well, it's good that the left communist line is out there...

In regards to the Auschwitz thing, I think it comes down to the fact that I don't believe that capitalism always acts rationally. If the Holocaust happened merely as "adjustment", that would indicate that it was a rational event...brutal and horrible, but rational from the standpoint of the maintenance of the system. He says that Jews were killed not on the basis of them being Jews, but on the basis of them being part of the petite-bougeoisie strata that was worthless to capitalism; but that doesn't really explain at all the massacres at Jozefow or any number of Jewish towns where the majority of Jews were not petite-bourgeoisie, and were the victims (in my opinion) of the collective spiraling insanity of national socialist ideology (that's not to say though that the men who committed the acts were devote national socialists, because that's not true...the psychological reasons for the violence committed demands a much more complex explanation). It's difficult (if not impossible) to prove that such acts in Eastern Europe and elsewhere were beneficial as a whole for capitalism...humans often act in irrational and self-destructive ways, and I simply don't see the economic systems that we forge for ourselves being immune from such impulses.

[Blackscare]

I don't even know what that means?


Ah, well you used an icon template that is exactly the same as the one used on that forum.

[9]

an icon template

I don't even know what an icon template is lol. don't talk to me in internet jargon; I am not 'in the know' technologically:( I just googled the damn image.

Anyway, since I'm derailing the thread (it is actually greyscare's fault, tho), I may as well respond to the OP: Lenin.
Bordiga was pretty brilliant, but I'd take a Lenin over a Bordiga any day. But I actually prefer reading Bordiga to Lenin.
Luxemburg is also up there.
This is my super insightful response.

[The Hong Se Sun]

Everything I had read about Machetero's was very socialist and while I have to admit they weren't the most effective movement they attacked feds and that type of work. But yes they are more national liberation minded.

[Zanthorus]

Well, it's good that the left communist line is out there...

My interpretation of Marx doesn't really fit into the "left communist line" though. I disagree with aspects of practically every interpretation of Marx I've read so far actually, but the ones I come closes too probably fall under the rubric of Humanist Marxism. I strongly disagree with the ICC's interpretation at least of Marx as having some mystical theory of all social systems as being divided into two separate epochs, one "ascendent" and the other "decadent" and of capitalism being similarly divided somewhere around the world war one mark. Marx rejected Adam Smith's theory of the falling rate of profit as a theory of inevitable economic decline, his theory of capitalist crisis is cyclical. The "final" crisis of capitalism is working class revolution. I've never read anything by them explaining exactly why capitalism is now "decadent" apart from some Marx quotes that don't say what they want them to say, but it seems tha their theory at least is based heavily in Rosa Luxemburg's (refuted) theory of saturated markets. The ICT's theory of capitalist "decadence" seems to be a combination of Marx's falling profit rate theory and Lenin's theory of Imperialism, which I guess is more reasonable. I don't necessarily disagree with the fact that capitalism can change qualitatively at certain points rendering tactics which may have seemed aprropriate beforehand as useles. However the ICT still seems to think that "decadence" is somehow fundamental to Marxism, all the more worrying when the world hasn't actually looked like the world of Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism since at least the 70's and certainly not since the fall of the Soviet Union and the globalisation of capital. If I recall correctly, Marx and Engels in the German Ideology actually attack periodisations of history as being attempts to avoid real concrete history. In the ICC's case at least it also serves as an excuse for extreme sectarianism. Their articles attacking Daniel DeLeon for attacking reformism before capitalist "decadence" set in were rubbish, for example. Anyway, I'm already way off-topic so I better stop there before the ICC get a whole article on me and my "academic" tendencies...

I agree with you that Bordiga's interpretation of the Holocaust is a bit off. But I still think the attack on so-called "anti-fascism" was spot on:


At that same time all our good democratic anti-fascists threw themselves on the corpses of the Jews. And since that time they wave them under the nose of the proletariat. In order to make them feel capitalism’s infamy? No, on the contrary. It’s to make it appreciate, in contrast, the true democracy, the true progress, the well being it enjoys in capitalist society. The horrors of capitalist death must make the proletariat forget the horrors of capitalist life and the fact that the two are indissolubly connected. The experiments of the SS doctors must make them forget that capitalism experiments on a large scale with carcinogenic products, on the effects of alcoholism on heredity, the radioactivity of “democratic” bombs. If they show lampshades made of human skin it’s to make us forget that capitalism transforms the living man into a lampshade. The mountains of hair, the teeth of gold, the bodies of men turned into merchandise must make us forget that capitalism made a merchandise of living man. It is labor, man’s very life, that capitalism has transformed into merchandise. This is the source of all evils. Using the corpses of the victims of capital to try to hide the reality, to have the corpses serve as protection for capital, is the most despicable way of using them to the ultimate degree.

[Salmonella]

Fidel Castro.

[∞]

Barack Hussien Obama

[#FF0000]

Barack Hussien Obama

Oh you!

[RedStarOverChina]

Engels. Because he's gracious. And Mao because he's defiant.

[Blindfire]

For me, my favorite Communists are:
Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Fidel Castro, Kim Il-Sung, and Che Guevara.

[stella2010]

Lenin

[NGNM85]

Che Guevara

[empiredestoryer]

the first man who stood up for his rights

[RGacky3]

For me, my favorite Communists are:
Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Fidel Castro, Kim Il-Sung, and Che Guevara.

For Gods sake ...

[Arlekino]

For me Lenin, August Bebel, and of course Marx and Englels.

[Barry Lyndon]

che guevara

lmao.

[Nikolay]

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Jesus Christ :thumbup1:... j/k

Rosa Luxemburg, Che, Trotsky and Connolly. I also like Lenin and Zizek.

Stalin is only cool from an anti-fascist perspective.:lol:

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Che, Debs, and then many of the the men and women who fought against or capitalism at different points in history, but no one person.

[black magick hustla]

I strongly disagree with the ICC's interpretation at least of Marx as having some mystical theory of all social systems as being divided into two separate epochs, one "ascendent" and the other "decadent" and of capitalism being similarly divided somewhere around the world war one mark.To be honest. It is not the ICC's "interpretation", it was more or less the policy of the comintern and it was more or less what Rosa Luxembourg said about WWI.

[∞]

Am I the only one who sees the many hurrs and durrs in this thread?

[AK]

Quite obviously, the late Thomas Sankara, former president of Burkina Faso.
fapfapfap

[Bud Struggle]

Che, Debs, and then many of the the men and women who fought against or capitalism at different points in history, but no one person.

Come to think of it--THIS is the best Communist answer. :thumbup:

[Zanthorus]

To be honest. It is not the ICC's "interpretation", it was more or less the policy of the comintern and it was more or less what Rosa Luxembourg said about WWI.

That sort of makes it even worse, since World War One ended 93 years ago and the "epoch of imperialist decay" has ostensibly been going for around the same length of time, yet capitalism still hasn't collapsed in on itself (To be fair to Luxemburg, her theory was that capitalism would collapse when it could no longer find non-capitalist markets to realise surplus-value in. However much of the world was still pre-capitalist at the time of world war one. It could reasonably be said that her theory was correct, but her assessment of when the tipping point occured was false. Her theory is wrong, however). Anywaym I refer you to "The theory of decadence at the heart of Historical Materialism" where the ICC rolls out a bunch of Marx and Engels quotes to show that their theory can be found in them.

[Comrade Anarchist]

I don't like one communist but i like former communists who have seen their error and changed their ideologies to ones that espouse liberty like myself.:thumbup1:

[Ty_Glitchblade]

thomas jefferson

[∞]

Hurr durr che cuz he got a beret and a goatee hurr durr, and he revolution hurr durr. And hurr marx cuz he invented the hurrr idea...


I personally like this guy...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b9/Fran%C3%A7ois-No%C3%ABl_Babeuf.jpg

[Commiechu]

1. Marx
2. Engels
3. Lenin
4. Trotsky

[Tomhet]

Myself, as others have said..

[Forward Union]

Stalin except he didnt kill enough people imho

[ContrarianLemming]

the Haymarket anarchists.

[Bright Banana Beard]

It is obviously that I liked Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin and Hoxha.

However, my favorite would have to be Lenin since he contributed massively during his times. It just Marx and Engels have to rely on what they can think while Lenin pulled it off better due to material objection he had to face. The latter can be say the same for Stalin and Hoxha, but they only contribute to fix some errors such as Imperialism and Revolution.

[Apoi_Viitor]

Noam chomsky

[AK]

Kropotkin, for his contradictory nickname, the Anarchist Prince and his crazy-ass beard.
http://recollectionbooks.com/bleed/Encyclopedia/Kropotkin/krop2.gif

[AK]

I don't like one communist but i like former communists who have seen their error and changed their ideologies to ones that espouse liberty like myself.:thumbup1:
http://hairyfish.org/wp-content/how-about-a-nice-cup-of-shut-the-fuck-up7662.jpg

[soyonstout]

Um, Gabriel Kolko is not a Communist. He calls himself an "anti-capitalist" but he has written a whole book After Socialism spewing post-modernist garbage about how Marxism leads to Gulags because of it's "system building".

However the obvious answer to this question is Bordiga. Auschwitz, or the Great Alibi and his calls for "revolutionary totalitarianism" combine to make his work some of the hardest trolling of liberals known to man :D

To be fair, Bordiga also had a great many confusions, especially on substitutionism and, despite the brilliance of a piece like The Democratic Principle, on the necessity of delegate democracy in workers' struggles (assemblies, the soviets, etc.). He also became much less of a shining light in later years, in some ways unwilling to dialogue with other revolutionary groups and to acknowledge their real critiques of Leninism, which is very unfortunate.

-soyons tout

[Weezer]

I really like Zizek and Parenti in terms of contemporary Marxists.

Historically, I <3 Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, Che, and Thomas Sankara.

[Revolution starts with U]

All of them? :cool: