MaoistRebelNews2 calls out RevLeft Trotskyists

[Hexen]

I don't know if anyone's posted this yet but...

6gMGicWnRPE

[Q]

This whiner was already posted in Chit-Chat. He's quite pathetic.

[RED DAVE]

He reminds me of the character played by Paul Giamatti in the movie Sideways before he gets the girl. :D

RED DAVE

[Sam_b]

Something tells me that Maoist Rebel will 'never get the girl'.

[Obs]

Not as much "calls out" as "whines impotently at".

[maskerade]

I can't take anything he says seriously. But he seems to take himself too seriously

[chegitz guevara]

:lol:

[Comrade Marxist Bro]

Thank God and Mao that the left has found a real hero to combat the Trotskyists on YouTube.

What else can say that you're a real fighter for communism and justice with as much feeling as an olive shirt made to look life a uniform, if worn against the backdrop of a Chinese flag?

[DragonQuestWes]

No disrespect, but I don't know why some of you guys are so worked up over the Maoist Rebel.

Can't say that I'll be taking sides on this one.

[the last donut of the night]

god i hope this never falls onto the hands of 4chan /b/ users...


the damage to the movement would be catastrophic

[Mindtoaster]

No disrespect, but I don't know why some of you guys are so worked up over the Maoist Rebel.

Can't say that I'll be taking sides on this one.

Look at him.

[DragonQuestWes]

Look at him.

That's not really telling me much. I really don't see the problem with him. Not saying that I agree with everything he says.

[Queercommie Girl]

Something tells me that Maoist Rebel will 'never get the girl'.

Obviously I also consider this guy to be ridiculous, no arguments there, he is a disgrace to everyone who ever calls himself/herself a Maoist and anyone who is partially influenced by Maoism.

But I don't see how your implicitly semi-sexist remark here plays any kind of positive role. Girls don't exist for men "to get" as if they are some kind of "property", no matter how deeply entrenched such ideas are in our fundamentally macho and sexist society.

In addition, a man's (or woman's for that matter) worth is not measured by how many sexual partners (of any gender) he has, but by how much contribution he has made to society. Are you suggesting that someone who is asexual or don't really care much for sex cannot play a significantly positive role to revolutionary socialism, that every revolutionary socialist must also possess the stereotypical ability "to score" sexually? That would seem to be a rather ridiculous suggestion to make.

[Crux]

SEP supports Polanski? I thought that was the Sparts?

[scarletghoul]

Obviously I also consider this guy to be ridiculous, no arguments there, he is a disgrace to everyone who ever calls himself/herself a Maoist and anyone who is partially influenced by Maoism.

But I don't see how your implicitly semi-sexist remark here plays any kind of positive role. Girls don't exist for men "to get" as if they are some kind of "property", no matter how deeply entrenched such ideas are in our fundamentally macho and sexist society.

In addition, a man's (or woman's for that matter) worth is not measured by how many sexual partners (of any gender) he has, but by how much contribution he has made to society. Are you suggesting that someone who is asexual or don't really care much for sex cannot play a significantly positive role to revolutionary socialism, that every revolutionary socialist must also possess the stereotypical ability "to score" sexually? That would seem to be a rather ridiculous suggestion to make.
I don't think Sam B was making a sexist remark; he was just pointing out that someone who dresses up in his room in a home-made uniform in front of a chinese flag to make videos about some people on the internet is likely to appear less attractive to any potential sexual partners. The phrase "get the girl" does of course stem from sexist roles in the plots of most stories, but is not here being used seriously; rather it is used as a way of poking fun at comrade MaoistRebelNews' fantasy story where he is the Maoist Rebel of the internets, and pointing out that being your own internet hero can not make you cool in real life.

[Yehuda Stern]

Is it so hard to believe that two different pseudo-Trot outfits have the same reactionary position? They also both believe China was a workers' state.

[Jimmie Higgins]

But I don't see how your implicitly semi-sexist remark here plays any kind of positive role...Comrade, I think he was making a refence to the post above his own.


He reminds me of the character played by Paul Giamatti in the movie Sideways before he gets the girl.Yes as in a whiny misanthrope that hates everything and everyone including himself despite his elitist attitude.

I'm all for pouncing on quasi-sexist remarks, but unfortunately for my pounce-practice, this doesn't qualify.

Hey, did yall other trotskyists get the memo about how the guy in this video is actually a conservative trying to make socialism look bad?

[Queercommie Girl]

Hey, did yall other trotskyists get the memo about how the guy in this video is actually a conservative trying to make socialism look bad?


I wouldn't be surprised if this guy turns out to be a fake.

I'd rather he is a fake actually, since he can potentially disgrace Maoism in general.

[Queercommie Girl]

Is it so hard to believe that two different pseudo-Trot outfits have the same reactionary position? They also both believe China was a workers' state.

How is believing that China was a worker's state "pseudo-Trot"? That would actually be the orthodox Trot position.

Many Trot organisations, such as the CWI, held to this view. Indeed, many people in the CWI hold that China is still a deformed worker's state even today, though it is a contested point.

See this article from the CWI analysing contemporary China's state character:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?do=discuss&group=&discussionid=1355

China – capitalist or not?

In a further contribution to our debate on China, Andy Ford poses the question ‘capitalist or not?’, examining the class character of the Chinese state. Recognising the enormous importance of developments in China, the debate was initiated in Socialism Today No.108, April 2007, "on the nature of the Chinese state and economy; on how long [China] can continue down this road; and to what final destination". So far, this exchange has included the following contributions: China’s future, by Peter Taaffe (No.108, April 2007); Can China be a new tiger? by Ron Groves (No.109, May 2007); China’s capitalist counter-revolution, by Vincent Kolo (No.114, December-January 2007-08); and The character of the Chinese state and China’s hybrid economy, by Lynn Walsh (No.122, October 2008). All are available on our website at www.socialismtoday.org (http://www.socialismtoday.org/)

THERE IS A widespread discussion amongst socialists as to whether China is now capitalist or is still a deformed workers’ state. This is an important discussion with different views. The debate is not sterile or arcane as it has implications for socialists’ approach to work in China.

The debate also has implications for the theory of ‘proletarian bonapartism’, advanced by the Committee for a Workers’ International (CWI) in the post-war period. This theory was a great achievement that allowed an understanding of developments in the neo-colonial countries such as Cuba and Vietnam. Marxism is a science and its theories should be kept logically consistent and capable of dealing with new developments. The recent changes in China are a new development requiring a Marxist explanation.

Trotsky’s theory of the state

THERE ARE MANY good reasons to still understand China as a deformed workers state, albeit one that is uniquely and extensively deformed. China has not yet gone through the transition to capitalism. We have to remember and build on Trotsky’s points in his article, The Class Nature of the Soviet State (1933): "Against the assertion that the workers’ state is apparently already liquidated there arises, first and foremost, the important methodological position of Marxism. The dictatorship of the proletariat was established by means of a political overturn and a civil war of three years. The class theory of society and historical experience equally testify to the impossibility of the victory of the proletariat through peaceful methods, that is without grandiose class battles, weapons in hand. How, in that case, is the imperceptible, ‘gradual’, bourgeois counter-revolution conceivable? Until now, in any case, feudal as well as bourgeois counter-revolutions have never taken place ‘organically’, but they have inevitably required the intervention of military surgery.

"In the last analysis, the theories of reformism, insofar as reformism has attained to theory, are always based on an inability to understand that class antagonisms are profound and irreconcilable; hence, the perspective of peaceful transformation of capitalism into socialism. The Marxist thesis relating to the catastrophic transfer of power from the hands of one class into the hands of another applies not only to revolutionary periods, when history sweeps madly ahead, but also to periods of counter-revolution, when society rolls backwards. He who asserts that the soviet government has been gradually changed from proletarian to bourgeois is only, so to speak, running backwards the film of reformism".

This is not to rely on dusty quotes from the archives against the reality facing us; it is to seek to understand reality using Marxist theory consistent with its history and development. Our analysis of China has to base itself on our previous descriptions.

To suddenly perceive a gradual transition from one form of society to another in China would be to throw out previous positions without acknowledging or analysing where or why these theories were in error. It is not really a serious way to proceed in any science.

Those who wish to describe China as capitalist today all use the same method. They start from the current picture, using numerous figures and estimates from bourgeois academic sources to show that China, now, this year, is capitalist. They then work backwards to try and identify a point of transition. Was it Tiananmen Square in 1989, or Deng’s speech at the XIV Party Congress in 1992, the incorporation of Hong Kong in 1997, or China’s accession to WTO in 2001, or even the passing of laws explicitly protecting private property in 2004? They prioritise present day impressions over historical analysis and understanding.

The case of China

CHINA WAS DEFORMED from the start. It started in 1949 from the model of Stalin’s Russia of 1945 not October 1917. As was said by our comrades at the time, nothing was left of the October revolution in Russia by 1949 except the nationalised planned economy and the monopoly of foreign trade.

As has been previously discussed, most of China’s progress from impoverished semi-colony to superpower was actually made under Mao, not in the recent development incorporating elements of capitalism. It was precisely this superpower status which gave China the independence from imperialism to undertake its path towards capitalism. Yet we should still regard China as a deformed workers state, but one in which capitalism has been let loose.

China is like a Soviet Union of the 1920s, but in which there is not even a residual element of workers democracy and with an uncontrolled New Economic Policy (NEP), which has been allowed to develop far beyond the NEP in 1920s Russia. Deng’s slogan for the peasants, ‘To get rich is glorious!’, was an echo of Bukharin’s slogan of the 1920s, ‘Peasants enrich yourselves’. Yet Russia in the 1920s was still a deformed workers state.
The NEP-type process in China has probably gone too far to be reversed, whatever the wishes of the bureaucrats of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). But this does not mean that the country is capitalist now, although it is likely that a capitalist overturn is more or less inevitable in the future.
An interesting point in Peter Taaffe’s article (Socialism Today, April 2007) was that in China the working class has now experienced capitalism and the market, and therefore should be less likely to support a transition to full-blooded capitalism. In fact workers in China are increasingly fighting back against the nascent capitalists using the traditional weapons of working class struggle such as strikes and trade union organisation.
In the USSR Gorbachev attempted to combine Perestroika (restructuring) with Glasnost (openness), using elements of the market within the deformed workers state, only to be rewarded with a coup and eventual dismissal. The Chinese bureaucracy drew the conclusion from the coup and the subsequent disastrous restoration of capitalism that they had to proceed with ‘perestroika’, restructuring, but without the political reform of ‘glasnost’.

As a result the Chinese working class are having to wage an underground struggle against the restructuring of the economy, against the effects of the capitalist elements introduced by the bureaucrats. We see strikes, protests and nascent illegal trade unions.

Peter Taaffe introduced a very interesting and fruitful idea into the discussion – that in China we have two different compartments of the economy, with sectors of rampant capitalism co-existing with sectors of the planned economy.

The state itself is of a mixed character with capitalist elements co-existing with the deformed workers state; and so the working class has to adopt different methods of struggle depending on which element confronts them. In fact the two elements have co-existed in fully-fledged form in China since the re-incorporation of Hong Kong into the ‘People’s Republic’ in 1997. At that time the CCP proclaimed ‘One country, two systems’. Of course such an amalgam must be inherently unstable, but it has lasted for twelve years so far. It would be quite possible for a ‘Chinese Solidarity’ to be formed, hence the ferocious repression of those workers who do organise their workmates into illegal unions and protests against unpaid wages. But the state in China is still a deformed workers’ state not a capitalist one.
The main task of the Chinese workers therefore is a political revolution along the lines of Hungary 1956 or Poland 1980, and the task of Marxists is to assist this development.

On the other hand the task for those workers in China who find themselves in the capitalist compartment of the Chinese economy, such as workers in Hong Kong, is to organise for socialism and the expropriation of the capitalists.

There is nothing contradictory or eclectic in describing two elements in co-existence in one society. In Eastern Europe the events were a dual process – a political revolution developing dialectically in tandem with a capitalist counter-revolution.

Other countries also have elements of the different historical stages of society co-existing together. In India we can see hunter-gathering, slavery and feudalism all co-existing with capitalism. We have described India as a living museum of historical materialism. But the Indian ruling class is a capitalist class and it is a capitalist state.

In China capitalism co-exists with a deformed workers’ state; but the state is still ruled by the bureaucracy of the CCP. The question is which element predominates and which class controls the state. As the Chinese state is still a deformed workers’ state it is the demands and analysis of the political revolution which should predominate in the workers’ movement and in theoretical discussion of China.

Transition occurs by qualitative change, not gradual evolution

ON RUSSIA SOME have claimed that the transition to a capitalist state was accomplished gradually by a ‘cold transition’ and without forcible revolution.
On the contrary surely the transition in Russia was accomplished by a series of major events – the failed coup, the attack on the parliament, and the deposing of Gorbachev and break-up of the USSR – to make a qualitative change in the state. Because the state and the bureaucracy had so little support the transition can be seen as ‘cold’, especially when compared with October 1917, but a cold transition is completely different from a peaceful evolution.

It is not a question of the use of force itself in the transition but of its qualitative character. The state has to be reconstituted as part of the transfer of power from the hands of one class to another. In 1917 the revolution in Petrograd was almost totally peaceful. The overturn in Petrograd was followed by the assumption of state power by the Bolsheviks and the construction of a new state apparatus, which had been forged by the soviets in the months after February 1917.

A military struggle was not necessary in Petrograd because of the preparations made and the overwhelming strength of the working class, but the important thing is that the old state of Kerensky was dispersed and a new one formed. The qualitative step in Petrograd occurred almost without military force and could be described as a ‘cold transition’; but it was not a peaceful evolution.

Even so the initial overturn in Petrograd was accompanied by quite extensive fighting in Moscow, and then followed by a savage civil war, at the end of which capitalism had been overthrown across the USSR. A new state was constructed, with the leaders of the old state arrested or in exile.

We have seen no such events in China, and the state apparatus has remained of essentially the same character since 1949.

In summary, the Marxist theory of the state asserts that the state is always a class state, and serves the ‘economically dominant’ ruling class. Therefore a new ruling class has to create its own state, although the new state may incorporate elements of the previous state at the lower levels.
To suddenly assert that China has become a capitalist state without a social counter-revolution is to strip the Marxist theory of the state of its class content. It is to allow present day impressions to overrule proper understanding and explanation of the situation in China in its historical context.

A coherent Marxist reading of present-day China would describe it as a uniquely deformed workers state, with major capitalist elements growing and strengthening within it.

Chinese society is therefore heading towards a huge confrontation between the working class and the nascent capitalist class, in which the CCP will be destroyed or split apart. The important practical point then is that the workers’ movement, and our commentary on that workers’ movement, has to prepare for such a confrontation, because the transition has not yet occurred.

Those who believe it has occurred risk disarming the movement into believing that the decisive event has already happened.

[Sam_b]

To clarify:


Girls don't exist for men "to get" as if they are some kind of "property", no matter how deeply entrenched such ideas are in our fundamentally macho and sexist society.

I agree, this is obvious. You may notice how I put "" between the statement made. I was more angling to imply that the Maoist 'Rebel' will never be like Paul Giamatti as he seems to conduct his life in front of a computer as a Youtube news agency, and would therefore never be in a position of actual contact. You think I would seriously use that phrase if Red Dave hadn't set up a one-liner in the post immediately before?

Apologies if anyone takes this as a sexist remark; but I think my record on this forum shows I'm hardly one to take the issue lightly.

[Crux]

Is it so hard to believe that two different pseudo-Trot outfits have the same reactionary position? They also both believe China was a workers' state.

I wasn't aware of any historical connections in the marxist movement on the Polanski debate. In other words, eh, not really comparable. At all.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

I can't resist asking this but wasn't this guy kicked off Revleft 2 years ago and kept trying to get back on with several dozen sockpuppets?

[the last donut of the night]

I love this guy precisely because he gives a fuck. Nobody outside a small groups of internet nerds (us) really gives a fuck about what RevLeft trotskyists think; but maoistrebelnews2 will not stand the slander of his good and decent name by these trotskyite infiltrators.

[Nachie]

6gMGicWnRPE

OMFG this is even better than The Vegan Marxist's "hey comrades!" video

[Yehuda Stern]

Iseul, that some people are calling themselves orthodox Trotskyists and hold on to deformed versions of old positions by Trotsky does not make them genuine Trotskyists. Dogma and orthodoxy are anathema to Marxism and Trotskyism; Marxism is a method, not a set of positions to be held from here to eternity. The fact that the Stalinists states could become market capitalist states with a revolution shows that these states were capitalist to begin with - in the case of the USSR, since the counterrevolution of the late 1930s.

[Tablo]

Lol, I actually did see an article he ripped off a while back. Yeah, I used to watch him as I have an account I use to subscribe to pretty much every leftist on youtube. He's a joke as are all youtube "revolutionaries".

[KC]

What was his username?

[anticap]

I'm neither a Trotskyist nor a Maoist. Watching that video as a disinterested observer from the sidelines, I don't see any problem with it. He seems to make perfectly good points.

Oh and, "intellectual property" is nonsense. So he wins the "stealing" bit by default. Shit, even the notion of authorship is questionable (http://subsol.c3.hu/subsol_2/contributors0/nimustext.html).

At any rate, once I read something, it's wired into my brain. It's as much "mine" as the "author's." So even if this guy did get his story ideas from somewhere outside his own head... so fucking what? They became common "property" the moment they were released into the wild, regardless of what bourgeois law says.

I'm rambling off-topic. So someone explain how this video is so terrible?

[KC]

It's not it's just sad that this loser took the time to address what Trotskyists on RevLeft think in a YouTube video.

[Red Commissar]

Why didn't he mention the Anarcho-Trot conspiracy? ;)

[Nachie]

I'm surprised he didn't nut himself when he mentioned the 2 terabyte external hard drive (you can tell he almost did, though).

[Kléber]

At any rate, once I read something, it's wired into my brain. It's as much "mine" as the "author's." So even if this guy did get his story ideas from somewhere outside his own head... so fucking what?
He didn't take ideas and write similar articles, he took entire articles and presented them as his own work. Before the "false flagging attack (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IeLKg55YNY)" you could type a sentence from any of his videos into google and get a link to the WSWS where the words originated.

[Victory]

He reminds me of the character played by Paul Giamatti in the movie Sideways before he gets the girl. :D

RED DAVE

Atleast he is active unlike you're worthless life.

[Q]

Atleast he is active unlike you're worthless life.

If you can only troll, then don't post.

[anticap]

He didn't take ideas and write similar articles, he took entire articles and presented them as his own work. Before the "false flagging attack (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IeLKg55YNY)" you could type a sentence from any of his videos into google and get a link to the WSWS where the words originated.

So fucking what (http://www.anonym.to/?http://subsol.c3.hu/subsol_2/contributors0/nimustext.html)?

As for false-flagging, it's a very real problem on YouTube. It happened to Brendan Cooney (http://www.youtube.com/user/brendanmcooney), who was flagged for nudity and had to remake a video (IIRC, he used a few seconds of dominatrix footage to show what Marx did not mean by "fetishism").

[LebenIstKrieg]

I really don't understand why the left constantly fights each other.

[bots]

I'm going to go read the collected works of Lenin in this guys voice. I plan on laughing very hard.

[KC]

Atleast he is active unlike you're worthless life.

So posting Youtube videos which garner a viewership of usually less than 1,000 is "being active" now?

My how the bar has lowered over the years...

[Dimentio]

I hope he's having fun.

And what is this thread doing in politics?

[Dimentio]

He came.

He saw.

He moved the thread.

[Il Medico]

He came.

He saw.

He moved the thread.
You should change your name to Caesar, that way all your Roman Empire references would be more appropriate/funny.

[IllicitPopsicle]

I concur with the good doctor.

[Kléber]

So fucking what (http://www.anonym.to/?http://subsol.c3.hu/subsol_2/contributors0/nimustext.html)?
This isn't a legal matter, in fact he can't be sued unless he makes money selling MaoistRebelNews T-shirts (lol). He can copy someone else's work to get "views and subscriptions" all he wants, but I have no respect for him because of it, since he steals entire articles from a "Trot site" while cutting out any sentences that mention Stalinism, then he makes pathetic videos bashing Trotskyism. If you want to take him seriously that's your right too.

I would rather read news articles at their original source than have them slowly read to me in a droning, lifeless voice by a costumed fool, with sentences removed by "Maoist Rebel" censorship, and words mispronounced etc.. it's that simple.


As for false-flagging, it's a very real problem on YouTube. It happened to Brendan Cooney (http://www.youtube.com/user/brendanmcooney), who was flagged for nudity and had to remake a video (IIRC, he used a few seconds of dominatrix footage to show what Marx did not mean by "fetishism").So that wasn't technically false-flagging, because the uploader violated one of YouTube's rules (arbitrary or not).

[anticap]

he steals [sic] entire articles

So fuc... ah, to hell with it.


So that wasn't technically false-flagging, because the uploader violated one of YouTube's rules (arbitrary or not).

I don't know if that's true or not, because I don't remember the clip well enough (I only recall leather, not flesh). I just know that that was the allegation.

False-flagging happens all the time. It's a serious problem. For example, a YouTuber called "Thunderf00t" deals with it from creationists because he makes videos about why people laugh at them. I don't doubt for a moment that it happened to this guy.

[#FF0000]

Seriously, what was his user name

[Dimentio]

Marcel I think.

[KC]

That's not Marcel.

[bots]

OMFG this is even better than The Vegan Marxist's "hey comrades!" video

Go on...

[Invincible Summer]

Marcel I think.

Marcel is MarceltheMaoist on Youtube. He accuses us on Revleft for being "RPG Leftists"

[Shokaract]

Again, this was so painful that it went back in time and traumatized me as a child.

[anticap]

Marcel is MarceltheMaoist on Youtube. He accuses us on Revleft for being "RPG Leftists"

LOL, WTF is an "RPG Leftist"? Is it analogous to "Tankie"? And just to be sure I understand it, WTF is a "Tankie"? :D

[Dimentio]

Don't tell me its RNK.

[Tablo]

Lol, this is like some kinda game.

[bots]

Don't tell me its RNK.

I remember that guy. Please let him be RNK. Trolling the shit out of his channel would be greatly enhanced.

[Invincible Summer]

LOL, WTF is an "RPG Leftist"? Is it analogous to "Tankie"? And just to be sure I understand it, WTF is a "Tankie"? :D

I'm not sure what a "tankie" is either, but basically he says that people on Revleft are just "roleplaying communists" and don't actually do anything. He has a very "prolier than thou" attitude.

[Raúl Duke]

I concur with the good doctor.

Anch'io sono d'accordo con il Medico.

Cesare Dimentio!!!!!


OMFG this is even better than The Vegan Marxist's "hey comrades!" video
Go on... More details:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEVU6GISWII&feature=player_embedded

On the current video being discussed, :lol:
It's really silly all these videos, but this one is, as Nachie pointed out, sillier than the "hey comrades" video because it's pathetic in the sense if complains about some Trots on a damn forum giving him a rough time.


I'm not sure what a "tankie" is either, but basically he says that people on Revleft are just "roleplaying communists" and don't actually do anything. He has a very "prolier than thou" attitude.

Yes, basically this. Also, I think Marcel was a MTW or a sympathizer of MTWists.

[anticap]

I'm not sure what a "tankie" is either, but basically he says that people on Revleft are just "roleplaying communists" and don't actually do anything. He has a very "prolier than thou" attitude.

Aha, I was thinking "Rocket-Propelled Grenade," not "Role-Playing Game."

[Invincible Summer]

Yes, basically this. Also, I think Marcel was a MTW or a sympathizer of MTWists.
Yeah I remember msging him on Youtube about his use of "AmeriKKKa" and such, and he said he's "pretty influenced by MTW." Whether it was just the dumb spelling thing that he thought was badass or the actual theory, I'm not sure.




Aha, I was thinking "Rocket-Propelled Grenade," not "Role-Playing Game."

LOL :laugh:

[Raúl Duke]

"AmeriKKKa" and such, and he said he's "pretty influenced by MTW." Whether it was just the dumb spelling thing that he thought was badass or the actual theory, I'm not sure.


On revleft he supported MIM (if I remember correctly) and more or less was a MTW; I believe he did use the term labor aristocrats all around, especially as a insult to other leftists here (just like when people here throw around the word "bourgeois" or "petit-bourgeois" all around as unfounded insults).

[Sasha]

I'm not sure what a "tankie" is either,

tankie is an (revleft?) slur for ML's who either glorify the USSR supression of the hungary or chech uprisings (as in "sent in the tanks"), ML's who just cant shut up about USSR weaponry (huhr hurh T-34 and kalishnikov huhr huhr) or ML's who seem to get their main political insperation from playing too much command and conquer red-alert.

most tankies seem to fit all 3 catogeries at once

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I can understand why though. Tanks are pretty fucking cool.

[Q]

tankie is an (revleft?) slur for ML's who either glorify the USSR supression of the hungary or chech uprisings (as in "sent in the tanks"), ML's who just cant shut up about USSR weaponry (huhr hurh T-34 and kalishnikov huhr huhr) or ML's who seem to get their main political insperation from playing too much command and conquer red-alert.

most tankies seem to fit all 3 catogeries at once

Hur Hur

[Queercommie Girl]

Iseul, that some people are calling themselves orthodox Trotskyists and hold on to deformed versions of old positions by Trotsky does not make them genuine Trotskyists. Dogma and orthodoxy are anathema to Marxism and Trotskyism; Marxism is a method, not a set of positions to be held from here to eternity. The fact that the Stalinists states could become market capitalist states with a revolution shows that these states were capitalist to begin with - in the case of the USSR, since the counterrevolution of the late 1930s.

And it's not dogmatic to dismiss other people as "pseudo-Trotskyists" just because they don't agree with you?

Sounds like ultra-left sectarianism to me.

What if I said any Trot who supports Hamas in any way is clearly a pseudo-Trot? It takes more than one party to play the dogmatic game.

[piet11111]

Well the USSR did have some damn fine weapons only the abrams tank was clearly superior to the T-72.

and Red alert was a kick ass game.

but i am still no tankie.

[Wanted Man]

tankie is an (revleft?) slur for ML's who either glorify the USSR supression of the hungary or chech uprisings (as in "sent in the tanks"), ML's who just cant shut up about USSR weaponry (huhr hurh T-34 and kalishnikov huhr huhr) or ML's who seem to get their main political insperation from playing too much command and conquer red-alert.

most tankies seem to fit all 3 catogeries at once

I think the term comes from British trotskyism from around 1956-1968, not Revleft.

[Tablo]

I think the term comes from British trotskyism from around 1956-1968, not Revleft.
And since British Trotskyism is dead it's all ours now. :lol:

Lol, just kidding.

[Sexy Red]

MRN has made some good video's before like "40 Helpful Tips for Anti Communists" which is a spot on parody but other than common grounds, he doesn't really understand Maoism's Authoritarian and Chinese Nationalist side. Maoism was meant to work for the Chinese and their country. Not anyone else.

And seeing a Maoist arguing with a Trotskyist is popcorn worthy. Let the childish bickering begin!

[Obs]

MRN has made some good video's before like "40 Helpful Tips for Anti Communists" which is a spot on parody but other than common grounds, he doesn't really understand Maoism's Authoritarian and Chinese Nationalist side. Maoism was meant to work for the Chinese and their country. Not anyone else.

I love new members! :lol:

[Lenina Rosenweg]

National Maoism?

[Sam_b]

I think the term comes from British trotskyism from around 1956-1968, not Revleft.

This is pretty much correct. AFAIK it was never used as much in referring to the Prague Spring either.

[Zanthorus]

And since British Trotskyism is dead it's all ours now. :lol:

No it's not, Britain is probably one of the only countries in the world where the far left is Trotskyist dominated. All the major far-left parties here that I can think of are Trotskyist.

[Os Cangaceiros]

The man likes his tanks.

yeah he got all teary-eyed when the Russian gov. announced the cancellation of funding for the T-95. :crying: