I Feel Something Huge Is Going To Happen

[Rakhmetov]

The 3 wars of the USA, the Korean crisis, global economic meltdown, riots in the Eurozone, revolutions in Latin America all conspire to convince me that a general upheaval is about to occur in the world. The world is sitting on an open powder magazine and any spark is going to ignite it.

I don't know if this portends for good or evil but I feel like Lenin felt prior to WWI breaking out. He said it himself, "I feel something huge is going to happen."

:eek::che::w00t::hammersickle::marx::reda::star::c astro::mad::scared::trotski::star3::cubaflag::engl es::blackA::ninja::star2:

[Soseloshvili]

Things are happening. The problem is that we're not unified enough to take advantage of them. All Communists are divided into multiple parties who do nothing but bicker amongst themselves. So, all the action is happening to fall into all the wrong hands.

Unity, then publicity, then class solidarity, then action. This is what I've basically always said, if we want this movement to get anywhere.

[Mannimarco]

There will never be unity by mutual agreement. We Stalinists must cut down every last Trotskyist and anarchist.. Then we will have unity.

[zimmerwald1915]

My goodness, I hope you're trolling.

[Blackscare]

There will never be unity by mutual agreement. We Stalinists must cut down every last Trotskyist and anarchist.. Then we will have unity.


http://stellarspectral.com/memes/trlht.jpg

[Mannimarco]

I'm not trolling. There's a deep emotion and historical rift between Trotskyists and Stalinists, Anarchists and Communists, that will only be solved by violent. Our views clash far too heavily for permanent unity. Particular in the extremely reactionary reviews of the trotskyists.

My post may be trollish, but I meant it.

[Spawn of Stalin]

Things already ARE happening. Nepal, Greece, India, the Phillipines, need I continue?

[Rakhmetov]

I'm not trolling. There's a deep emotion and historical rift between Trotskyists and Stalinists, Anarchists and Communists, that will only be solved by violent. Our views clash far too heavily for permanent unity. Particular in the extremely reactionary reviews of the trotskyists.

My post may be trollish, but I meant it.

<Sigh>

Trotsky won the fight against Stalin in 1991. :)

[Psy]

Things are happening. The problem is that we're not unified enough to take advantage of them. All Communists are divided into multiple parties who do nothing but bicker amongst themselves. So, all the action is happening to fall into all the wrong hands.

Unity, then publicity, then class solidarity, then action. This is what I've basically always said, if we want this movement to get anywhere.
History has shown proletarian uprisings tend to happen under the nose of the vanguard, as they usually are sparked by something random causing sudden class militancy. This means we the proletariat could take to the streets with very little forewarning and total ignorance that there is even a vanguard.

[Mannimarco]

<Sigh>

Trotsky won the fight against Stalin in 1991. :)

Trotsky won the fight against Stalin in 1953, when Stalin died and trotskyist scum Khrushchev took over.

It was a pyrric victory on Trotsky's part. Both he and Stalin were dead at that point, really, Stalin managed to hold off the revisionist and counterrevolutionary influence of Trotskyism until his death, which I think is the true victory.

[4 Leaf Clover]

<Sigh>

Trotsky won the fight against Stalin in 1991. :)
Ill join the trollfest and state : how is that possible since neither of two were alive 1991. Btw the title of the topic sounds like a lowlife joke before someone farts

[Mannimarco]

History has shown proletarian uprisings tend to happen under the nose of the vanguard, as they usually are sparked by something random causing sudden class militancy. This means we the proletariat could take to the streets with very little forewarning and total ignorance that there is even a vanguard.

The vanguard is still vital for the success of the moment, and will become involved during it.

[NecroCommie]

Lets stop pretending that there exists any other difference between marxist-leninists and trotskyists than historical interpitation. They are basically the same ideology but use different names with which to call soviet union.

[Red Commissar]

Only thing huge that might happen is the dump I'm about to make because of some bad burritos I ate.

To be honest while the global situation is tense as result of the economic crises, I don't think something "big" will happen.

[the last donut of the night]

I don't know if this portends for good or evil but I feel like Lenin felt prior to WWI breaking out. He said it himself, "I feel something huge is going to happen."


Yeah, and then millions died in one of history's bloodiest wars; something only a rotting and degenerate capitalism could accomplish.

We might be on top of something, but it's not going to be pretty, "heroic", or something out of a movie, where the people finally rise up and justice is restored to the land. Yes, amidst war, profiteering, organized murder, and wage slavery, there might be struggle that might actually lead to something. This is not time for dramatic music, haughty words, revolutionaries romantically calling for revolution.

I hate to be a bastard, but the world's about to get bloody, and if we don't fight back, it's going to be the working class to bear the brunt of the capitalist's caprices. This is a time for blood, sweat, tears, and toil. Let's hope we bring a better world out of this worship of massacre, this damn capitalist system.

[Robocommie]

He said it himself, "I feel something huge is going to happen."


He even said it in English!

[Cultural Revolution]

If anything is brewing its another world war, which is a very scary thought, as the UK USA France Germany will be the axis and DPRK China China will be the allies, so again we will have bad against bad, and all of us commies in the first world will either join a resistance or be in an internment camp.

[Burn A Flag]

Wait a minute, the USA is in 3 wars?

[Mannimarco]

If anything is brewing its another world war, which is a very scary thought, as the UK USA France Germany will be the axis and DPRK China China will be the allies, so again we will have bad against bad, and all of us commies in the first world will either join a resistance or be in an internment camp.

Do you really think in a time of war they'd bother with an internment camp? They'd just shoot us.

[Soviet dude]

Lets stop pretending that there exists any other difference between marxist-leninists and trotskyists than historical interpitation. They are basically the same ideology but use different names with which to call soviet union.

I can only assume you've actually never in your life dealt with a Trotskyite party, because nothing could be further from the truth.

Likewise for people who believe revolutions happen because of "spontaneous" shit. Lots and lots of Leftists here seem to think revolutions just magically happen, and that some party has to be ready to exploit this spontaneous event. Nothing could be stupider. There is no revolution without a vanguard. Without the vanguard, people don't come out in the street, they don't strike, they don't protest, they don't fight cops or burn shit, and they sure as hell don't overthrow governments.

Whatever "big" thing may or may not happen anytime soon, there won't be a revolution in America, because there is no vanguard party to build it. If you believe otherwise, you just don't understand a god damn thing.

[Ele'ill]

If anything is brewing its another world war, which is a very scary thought, as the UK USA France Germany will be the axis and DPRK China China will be the allies, so again we will have bad against bad, and all of us commies in the first world will either join a resistance or be in an internment camp.

I don't see any of this happening.

[Robocommie]

Things are happening. The problem is that we're not unified enough to take advantage of them. All Communists are divided into multiple parties who do nothing but bicker amongst themselves. So, all the action is happening to fall into all the wrong hands.

Unity, then publicity, then class solidarity, then action. This is what I've basically always said, if we want this movement to get anywhere.

I used to think that too, but the truth is, every political movement since the dawn of politics has been plagued by fracturing and infighting. It's just the nature of the beast. This isn't new for Marxism, or socialism, or really, any other ism you can think of. It's just something we have to deal with.

[Pretty Flaco]

I didn't know the US was in 3 wars either and I live in the US.

[gorillafuck]

What Korean Crisis? The happenings on the Korean peninsula right now aren't that unusual for that area.

[Rusty Shackleford]

well, the us is in Iraq, Afghanistan and 3 partial wars, yemen, palestine, and pakistan. there, 3 wars.

oh wait and the "drug war" in latin america.

[red cat]

well, the us is in Iraq, Afghanistan and 3 partial wars, yemen, palestine, and pakistan. there, 3 wars.

oh wait and the "drug war" in latin america.

Aren't US soldiers in the Philippines too ?

[Spawn of Stalin]

Aren't US soldiers everywhere? Honestly I think you're all giving the US bit too much credit, factor in its proxies, Israel, Colombia, South Korea, the fact that the CIA are in every country the world over just waiting to overthrow x government and install y dictator. Afghanistan is just the tip of the iceberg.

[Rusty Shackleford]

The number of wars the US is involved in:
http://etc.usf.edu/clipart/41700/41717/FC_Infinity_41717_lg.gif

[Psy]

I can only assume you've actually never in your life dealt with a Trotskyite party, because nothing could be further from the truth.

Likewise for people who believe revolutions happen because of "spontaneous" shit. Lots and lots of Leftists here seem to think revolutions just magically happen, and that some party has to be ready to exploit this spontaneous event. Nothing could be stupider. There is no revolution without a vanguard. Without the vanguard, people don't come out in the street, they don't strike, they don't protest, they don't fight cops or burn shit, and they sure as hell don't overthrow governments.

Whatever "big" thing may or may not happen anytime soon, there won't be a revolution in America, because there is no vanguard party to build it. If you believe otherwise, you just don't understand a god damn thing.
Maybe you should look at how revolutionary situations start, historically they occurred with the proletariat reacting to attacks against it as a decentralized massive blob that blindly lashes out like when abused dog finally snaps and starts attacking its master.

For example look at Detroit July 1967, no vanguard told Vietnam vets in Detroit to snipe at the National Guard yet they did, no vanguard told the inner-city proletariat to burn shit. You don't need a vanguard to agitate the proletariat, no the role of vanguard is to focus the militancy of the proletariat.

[IndependentCitizen]

Fuck all will happen.

North Korea seems to be only flexing its muscles. South Korea has major backing from the US. North Korea has no backing - China hasn't said anything. And doing anything would damage them too much (economically, not in military terms) South Korea has expressed it's decision to engage in further military action if the North continue their 'aggression'. North Korea from what I can tell (correct me if I'm wrong) has yet to be threathened with such action from South Korea. The North Korea could be simply looking for attention since it did reveal its new enrichment plant, and could be looking for the media spotlight. Which in all honesty, disagree with me if you will. Seems to be the norm.

Regarding the situation in Latin America - Yes, progressive change is happening, but let's not get too excited. Bolivia's military announced its socialist values, however. The workers are not in control yet, and we've not really seen anything to suggest they will be anytime soon. Venezuela is on the right track, however. How long is it before the U.S starts to stick its nose in.

With regards with the situation in the Eurozone, I can't speak on behalf of the Irish. But there seems to be action being prepared against the austerity package the Irish Govt. wants to impose, France has gone quiet, and so has Greece. Whilst the issue is there, I haven't seen evidence the movement is still strong in these countries (par Greece).

Christmas is coming up, I think things will dramatically cool down, and people will begin to forget :(

Sorry for being pessimistic.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

As long as you spend yr life waiting, feeling that something might happen, you will . . . well, do exactly that.

If you want something big to happen, take some agency.

GO! GO! GO!

[scarletghoul]

>_< There won't be a world war. Most of the conflicts and tensions are between classes and not countries. Korea and Latin America are the only places where there are actual governments violently opposing each other. The rest of the happenings (afghanistan pakistan india somalia iraq nepal philippines greece france myanmar palestinesortof mexico congo etc) are all taking place within the same country, so its not likely to turn into a world war, its just a load of guerilla wars and riots.

[Cultural Revolution]

im not calling for a world war, but with russia and china emerging as well as india and japan as super powers, there will be more inter-imperialist wars, and if china did pledge support for the DPRK, then it could very well lead to a new world war between

INDIA CHINA RUSSIA IRAN BRAZIL
V
USA UK FRANCE GERMANY ETC

and under the pretence of fighting over the DPRK.

its not very likely, but shit, it could happen

[Rusty Shackleford]

this has turned into another war fap fest.

[IndependentCitizen]

Why would India go to war with the US/UK?

We're economically tied together.

[Cultural Revolution]

Because the rulling classes of China Russia etc are the emerging superpowers and want to become the new imperialist powers, rather than be poodles

[Amphictyonis]

There will never be unity by mutual agreement. We Stalinists must cut down every last Trotskyist and anarchist.. Then we will have unity.

The first person I neg rept. Maybe second.

[Burn A Flag]

Same with China lol. Actually you all may be interested to know that Venezuela supplies the majority of the USA's imports.

[Amphictyonis]

Z0GFRcFm-aY

[Impulse97]

There will never be unity by mutual agreement. We Stalinists must cut down every last Trotskyist and anarchist.. Then we will have unity.

I must disagree. Stailism along with Trotsky and Marxist/Leninist, cannot gain power not only because of the deep fractures that run through them but for the simple fact that there is not a deep enough base in the US or otherwise for a revolution to occur. What we need is Democratic Socialism. We need to use the existing Federal system to get a majority into office and reshape the government from the inside. Another, issue is that Marx never provided a government model in his works and thus Lenin and Stalin where left to mold it as they saw fit. Which, as the whole world saw was and utter failure of biblical proportions.

[Rusty Shackleford]

c9hYAQQFsoc

[scarletghoul]

im not calling for a world war, but with russia and china emerging as well as india and japan as super powers, there will be more inter-imperialist wars, and if china did pledge support for the DPRK, then it could very well lead to a new world war between

INDIA CHINA RUSSIA IRAN BRAZIL
V
USA UK FRANCE GERMANY ETC

and under the pretence of fighting over the DPRK.

its not very likely, but shit, it could happen
even if another korean war did erupt, and even if china + nato took part, why would it envelope the whole world. the korean war of the 50s involved China and the USSR fighting America, UK, etc,, but it was not a world war. you would need some complete idiots or maniacs in power in several countries for that to happen

[Cultural Revolution]

even if another korean war did erupt, and even if china + nato took part, why would it envelope the whole world. the korean war of the 50s involved China and the USSR fighting America, UK, etc,, but it was not a world war. you would need some complete idiots or maniacs in power in several countries for that to happen

because it would be used by china and various emerging superpowers as a chance to destroy the imperialist powers and become the new top dogs themselves.

[Desperado]

Because the rulling classes of China Russia etc are the emerging superpowers and want to become the new imperialist powers, rather than be poodles

Imperialism doesn't involve direct wars between superpowers any more, please, this isn't 1939. If China and America were to enter into a war, before a single bullet was to be fired the losses would be massive. China makes the goods, America buys them. Simple. Welcome to globalisation.

Also, China has no need of DPKR, in fact their more of a liability than anything else. All China uses it for is to avoid having an American allied nation at its doorstep.

Besides, your overestimating the emerging superpowers. Their military budgets are still just a fraction of America's, their GDPs less than half. There is only one superpower, and it will remain that way for a while.

Finally, India is China's rival, not its friend.

[fa2991]

Lets stop pretending that there exists any other difference between marxist-leninists and trotskyists than historical interpitation. They are basically the same ideology but use different names with which to call soviet union.

:rolleyes:

[gorillafuck]

Actually you all may be interested to know that Venezuela supplies the majority of the USA's imports.
I really doubt that the one country of Venezuela supplies the majority of US imports.

[Nolan]

I must disagree. Stailism along with Trotsky and Marxist/Leninist, cannot gain power not only because of the deep fractures that run through them but for the simple fact that there is not a deep enough base in the US or otherwise for a revolution to occur. What we need is Democratic Socialism. We need to use the existing Federal system to get a majority into office and reshape the government from the inside. Another, issue is that Marx never provided a government model in his works and thus Lenin and Stalin where left to mold it as they saw fit. Which, as the whole world saw was and utter failure of biblical proportions.

1. You have no idea what you're talking about.

2. Reformists go to OI.

[Rusty Shackleford]

i agree.

marx had actually laid out a 10 point "policy list" in the manifesto. along with his analyses of the paris commune and other things, they laid the ground work for a marxian state. lenin furthered with work.

[Nolan]

Fine I'll change it.

[Antifa94]

Trotsky won the fight against Stalin in 1953, when Stalin died and trotskyist scum Khrushchev took over.

It was a pyrric victory on Trotsky's part. Both he and Stalin were dead at that point, really, Stalin managed to hold off the revisionist and counterrevolutionary influence of Trotskyism until his death, which I think is the true victory.

you're really a FUCKING IDIOT. a deeply sectarian asshole. Trotsky would have HATED kruschev, the two were nothing alike ideologically. See, due to your fascistic intolerance of alternate ideologies the left will never unify and overthrow capitalism.

And you know what? I am a trotskyite and I don't mind MODERN day stalinists. why? because the only stalin was stalin, and I don't believe they'll turn out to be monstrous like he was. In this case, Marx's statement stands true- history occurs and then repeats itself, first as tragedy, and in the promulgation of your pathetic dictum, as farce.

The point remains, I do not mind stalinists, in fact I'm quite willing to converse with them and have many comrades of that persuasion. You on the other hand protract a counterrevolutionary hatred that will only cause the deaths of more comrades, an idea that appears to please you.
in short, you fucking sicken me.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

This is a pathetic thread.

On the point, lots of big things are happening, and bigger things will happen. However, the role of revolutionaries within these events will likely be insignificant if this kind of petty sectarianism persists. There is a vacuum in the political world that needs to be filled by a united, coherent and radical left that isn't stuck in the drawn out arguments of the previous century.

[Rusty Shackleford]

at some point, certain organizations and parties will end up as the recognized ideological and organizational leadership by the masses and that is when unity is needed.

[Amphictyonis]

Fine I'll change it.

Thanks for the neg rep. "only wieners neg rep" :) I guess that makes us both wieners. I'm simply not a fan of uber sectarian bullshit calling for the extermination of trots and anarchists. His statement was fucking absurd. Like I said, I save the 'neg rep' for 'special' people such as him. I've only done it twice (usually t you Stalinists)

:)

[Nolan]

Thanks for the neg rep. "only wieners neg rep" :) I guess that makes us both wieners. I'm simply not a fan of uber sectarian bullshit calling for the extermination of trots and anarchists. His statement was fucking absurd. Like I said, I save the 'neg rep' for 'special' people such as him. I've only done it twice (usually t you Stalinists)

:)

You're welcome, buddy. Anytime.

[Rafiq]

Things are happening. The problem is that we're not unified enough to take advantage of them. All Communists are divided into multiple parties who do nothing but bicker amongst themselves. So, all the action is happening to fall into all the wrong hands.

Unity, then publicity, then class solidarity, then action. This is what I've basically always said, if we want this movement to get anywhere.

We must create a new party that actually unites every party.

Because it won't be easy getting everyone to abandon their party's.

We must form a new one, that unites all, and allows Communists of all Ideas to join.

[Amphictyonis]

You're welcome, buddy. Anytime.

Well, I'll "neg rep" you as well if you think the only way for socialist solidarity is to kill all trots and anarchists. You'd be a fucking idiot if you think such. I want nothing to do with your brand of Marxism. Your worship of dead revolutionaries (REVISIONISTS) is silly. We're in the 21'rst century now if you hadn't noticed. The conditions in Russia don't apply. Get a clue....buy a vowel. Do something. Open your mind (and whatever other catch phrase I can't think of at the moment) :)

Cool your jets? Go build socialism in one country with Stalins ghost.

[Rafiq]

There will never be unity by mutual agreement. We Stalinists must cut down every last Trotskyist and anarchist.. Then we will have unity.

:D

Ahahaahaha

This actually made me laugh really hard :thumbup1:

But seriously, let's just unite under a same banner, but still have those little arguments, but nothing that makes us completely kill each other .

[Amphictyonis]

Things are happening. The problem is that we're not unified enough to take advantage of them. All Communists are divided into multiple parties who do nothing but bicker amongst themselves. So, all the action is happening to fall into all the wrong hands.

Unity, then publicity, then class solidarity, then action. This is what I've basically always said, if we want this movement to get anywhere.

^ this.

[Rafiq]

This is why I'm and indapendant Socialist.

Because my allegance only lies with Communism.

I can choose to agree with any Ideas of any of the Factions of Communism.

Sometimes I can be ML leaning, but usually I just sit back and watch Trots and MLs battle it out.

[Nolan]

Well, I'll "neg rep" you as well if you think the only way for socialist solidarity is to kill all trots and anarchists. You'd be a fucking idiot if you think such. I want nothing to do with your brand of Marxism. Your worship of dead revolutionaries (REVISIONISTS) is silly. We're in the 21'rst century now if you hadn't noticed. The conditions in Russia don't apply. Get a clue....buy a vowel. Do something. Open your mind (and whatever other catch phrase I can't think of at the moment) :)

Cool your jets?

I suggest you seek a cephalanalectomy from a trained medical professional. Your ability to conjure up an imaginary position of mine needs serious attention.

[Rafiq]

im not calling for a world war, but with russia and china emerging as well as india and japan as super powers, there will be more inter-imperialist wars, and if china did pledge support for the DPRK, then it could very well lead to a new world war between

INDIA CHINA RUSSIA IRAN BRAZIL
V
USA UK FRANCE GERMANY ETC


ULTIMATE DEATH MATCH ARENA BATTLE ROYAL!

Seriously, I hate these "War of the Gods" scenarios.

I predict that the future wars will be

PROLETARIAN

V

BOURGEOISIE

[Amphictyonis]

I suggest you seek a cephalanalectomy from a trained medical professional. Your ability to conjure up an imaginary position of mine needs serious attention.

I said IF thats your position which one can rightly assume by you siding with a Stalinist who just called for the extermination of anarchists and trots for "solidarity" purposes.

The only head in ass in this thread is the child man Stalinist calling for the deaths of anarchists and trots (and his nanny has head in ass syndrome- which would be you). :)

I'm not an anarchist or Trot by the way.

[Nolan]

Nurse! Nurse! Please restrain the patient before he embarrasses himself further!

[Amphictyonis]

Nurse! Nurse! Please restrain the patient before he embarrasses himself further!

Herself. And the only person in this thread who should be embarrassed is the foolish child who called for the extermination of Trots and anarchists. Do you have some sort intellectual argument to put forth or do you want to simply call each other names for a few minutes? I can dumb it down with you for a while. Sure.

[WeAreReborn]

Herself. And the only person in this thread who should be embarrassed is the foolish child who called for the extermination of Trots and anarchists. Do you have some sort intellectual argument to put forth or do you want to simply call each other names for a few minutes? I can dumb it down with you for a while. Sure.
I agree. Also why are extremely sectarian people, like the person who said to exterminate Anarchists and Trots, free from restriction? Genocide isn't revolutionary. Also how does destroying the majority of the left help the left? And bickering over which leader to glorify isn't going to make a revolution. So if you actually want a real Stalinist revolution, which in my opinion will probably never happen at least under that name, spread propaganda inform the people, and learn for yourself. I say the last suggestion because if you want to commit sectarian genocide you obviously aren't the most intelligent revolutionary.

[gorillafuck]

Do you have some sort intellectual argument to put forth or do you want to simply call each other names for a few minutes? I can dumb it down with you for a while. Sure.
Red America doesn't actually put forward viewpoints. He just trolls and pretends that non-Hoxhaists are saying things that they actually aren't.

[deLarge]

What we need is Democratic Socialism. We need to use the existing Federal system to get a majority into office and reshape the government from the inside.

Isn't that precisely what has been established, and is currently being dismantled through austerity programs?

[the last donut of the night]

I can only assume you've actually never in your life dealt with a Trotskyite party, because nothing could be further from the truth.

Likewise for people who believe revolutions happen because of "spontaneous" shit. Lots and lots of Leftists here seem to think revolutions just magically happen, and that some party has to be ready to exploit this spontaneous event. Nothing could be stupider. There is no revolution without a vanguard. Without the vanguard, people don't come out in the street, they don't strike, they don't protest, they don't fight cops or burn shit, and they sure as hell don't overthrow governments.

Whatever "big" thing may or may not happen anytime soon, there won't be a revolution in America, because there is no vanguard party to build it. If you believe otherwise, you just don't understand a god damn thing.


You imply that a vanguard is needed to create struggle in the first place. This is again the age-old tale of Marxists not being Marxist. Class struggle creates the need and form of a vanguard, not the other way around. We're not blanquists, enlightened and prolier-than-thou intellectuals bent to rally the idiotic masses to our neat old revolution.

[the last donut of the night]

this thread has absolutely confirmed my suspicions that 98% of revlefters have, due to watching "Che" at age 13 after an emotional breakup, spent more time fantasizing about fighting and killing people in revolutions than actually reading up on what actually happens when fighting breaks out in the real (ie. not revleft) world

[Rusty Shackleford]

this thread has absolutely confirmed my suspicions that 98% of revlefters have, due to watching "Che" at age 13 after an emotional breakup, spent more time fantasizing about fighting and killing people in revolutions than actually reading up on what actually happens when fighting breaks out in the real (ie. not revleft) world
i watched che when i was 18. so i was emotionally prepared :tt2:

"Come and See" is a good contrast to "Che"

shows how fucked up warfare is, especially for a Partisan.

[NoOneIsIllegal]

This argument died on the first/second page, but: Stalinists are Trotskyists are the same, in the modern context. If you were living in the 20s, 30s, or 40s, it might make a difference. But it REALLY doesn't fucking matter now unless another Soviet government is set up, and one guy with a big ego wants to be ruler, and another guy with a small peni... Uh, I mean big ego, wants to be in power. Thus the whole gulag thing starts and the whole "Well, IF I WAS IN CONTROL...." argument happens again.
Only difference would be death toll, probably.

:rolleyes:
I mean, srslyz.

[dernier combat]

Nothing will happen. The imperialist powers will fight their wars in the Middle East to the end. Progress in painfully slow in Venezuela, India, Nepal, the Phillipines and other places. The Korean situation will be solved diplomatically and with sanctions.

[Magón]

Seriously? Are we really going back to just argue over the days of the early-mid 20th Century? If so, let's at least make up the deal again. We Anarchists will go back to our bomb throwing/setting ways, and general love for giving CP's hell on their own turf, and Stalinists can go back to trying to make Socialism in one country possible. While simultaneously trying to hunt Anarchists, Trots, whoever they see as "reactionary" down, and see how they do in the 21st Century.

If you didn't know this already, it's a lot easier to get a bomb into a place, than it is hunting people down individually when you've got limited resources. :)

Also, if you didn't catch this was sarcasm, then too bad for you.

[Nolan]

Red America doesn't actually put forward viewpoints. He just trolls and pretends that non-Hoxhaists are saying things that they actually aren't.

Nope. Never said we should kill trots, and I'm not sure what hoxhaists are supposed to have to do with this. You made that up.

[Rusty Shackleford]

heres some L33t army size comparisons
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/images/attachement/jpg/site1/20101124/0023ae73cfef0e568c8827.jpg
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/images/attachement/jpg/site1/20101124/0023ae73cfef0e568cbc29.jpg


im supposed to be writing an essay and what do i do instead? read countless articles that all say the same damn thing.

[Mannimarco]

Most of you would support killing any bourgeois pigs or other blatant counterrevolutionaries who continued to fight against the Proletarian movement after the revolution, correct? It's kill or be killed.

The Trotskyists aren't blatant counterrevolutionaries. They hide under the guise of being revolutionaries themselves, and infiltrate the revolution. Then through revision and spite, rot the party from inside out.


Fighting the blatant counterrevolutionaries is easy, but with the Trotskyists, they must be nipped off early. As soon as the figurehead of a revolution dies, they will leap on it and install a capitalist dictatorship under the guise of Socialism. This is why there must be no trotskyists or revisionists left.

This is Stalin's greatest failure, that he did not leave safeguards in place that Trotskyists and other revisionists wouldn't seize power in his death.

[Mannimarco]

http://tendancecoatesy.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/new-trotsky3.jpg

[Bright Banana Beard]

This is gold, I going to grab a popcorn and watch the unfold. Pass me the soda, revlefter!

[Hit The North]

Most of you would support killing... blah, blah, blah
Good job your entire political activity is restricted to role play on E-Rebublik, otherwise you'd be scary.

The fact that you identify Khrushchev as a Trotskyist is laughable evidence that you don't have a clue what you're blathering about.

[robbo203]

I'm not trolling. There's a deep emotion and historical rift between Trotskyists and Stalinists, Anarchists and Communists, that will only be solved by violent. Our views clash far too heavily for permanent unity. Particular in the extremely reactionary reviews of the trotskyists.

My post may be trollish, but I meant it.

Sheesh. Talk about the politics of the kindergarten

[robbo203]

I can only assume you've actually never in your life dealt with a Trotskyite party, because nothing could be further from the truth.

Likewise for people who believe revolutions happen because of "spontaneous" shit. Lots and lots of Leftists here seem to think revolutions just magically happen, and that some party has to be ready to exploit this spontaneous event. Nothing could be stupider. There is no revolution without a vanguard. Without the vanguard, people don't come out in the street, they don't strike, they don't protest, they don't fight cops or burn shit, and they sure as hell don't overthrow governments.

Whatever "big" thing may or may not happen anytime soon, there won't be a revolution in America, because there is no vanguard party to build it. If you believe otherwise, you just don't understand a god damn thing.

A vanguard by definition means a minority. A capitalist revolutiuon can certainly be accomplished through determined minority. A socialist/communist revolution, however, is an entirely different matter since the great majority have to want and understand what a socialist or communist society is actually about it before it can be brought into being. It is not going to magically materialise with a wave of a wand. Wghen you have majority understanding then again, by definition, you no longer have a vanguard.

So in fact you claim needs to be radically revised: there can be no socialist/communist revolution WITH a vanguard. The fact that you depend upon a vanguard at all means that the crucial pre-conditions for a successful socialist/communist revolution have not been met.

[Mannimarco]

Good job your entire political activity is restricted to role play on E-Rebublik, otherwise you'd be scary.

The fact that you identify Khrushchev as a Trotskyist is laughable evidence that you don't have a clue what you're blathering about.


We're all armchairs here. And yes, I am politically active irl too.

[Psy]

A vanguard by definition means a minority. A capitalist revolutiuon can certainly be accomplished through determined minority. A socialist/communist revolution, however, is an entirely different matter since the great majority have to want and understand what a socialist or communist society is actually about it before it can be brought into being. It is not going to magically materialise with a wave of a wand. Wghen you have majority understanding then again, by definition, you no longer have a vanguard.

So in fact you claim needs to be radically revised: there can be no socialist/communist revolution WITH a vanguard. The fact that you depend upon a vanguard at all means that the crucial pre-conditions for a successful socialist/communist revolution have not been met.
Actually a vanguard is the spear head of a main body and useless without the main body thus one does not usually speak of a vanguard as a separate force as if there is no main force there is no vanguard as there is nothing to be advanced of.

This means a vanguard does not create a revolution.

[NoOneIsIllegal]

There are a lot of situations going on right now. I know there will never be a truly united left, but what we do need is an all encompassing Internationale. Not one that excludes certain groups (such as the Second International with anarcho-syndicalists) or ones that enforce certain pledges (see Third International/Cominterm) or only one tendency (Fourth International).
I know my suggestion may contradict itself, but we need to gather all parties, unions, movements, federations, councils, anything that is working class-based seeking revolutionary change. We have to see where we stand with each other, what mutual aid we can deliver in solidarity, and what alliances can be formed.
In so many different situations, who knows what can happen and how we can help.

[Fulanito de Tal]

Mengistu,

I feel the same way and so does Castro. Something huge is about to happen.

7TNTupjH44E

[the last donut of the night]

Most of you would support killing any bourgeois pigs or other blatant counterrevolutionaries who continued to fight against the Proletarian movement after the revolution, correct? It's kill or be killed.

The Trotskyists aren't blatant counterrevolutionaries. They hide under the guise of being revolutionaries themselves, and infiltrate the revolution. Then through revision and spite, rot the party from inside out.


Fighting the blatant counterrevolutionaries is easy, but with the Trotskyists, they must be nipped off early. As soon as the figurehead of a revolution dies, they will leap on it and install a capitalist dictatorship under the guise of Socialism. This is why there must be no trotskyists or revisionists left.

This is Stalin's greatest failure, that he did not leave safeguards in place that Trotskyists and other revisionists wouldn't seize power in his death.

http://media.ebaumsworld.com/mediaFiles/picture/517631/698617.jpg

[WeAreReborn]

Most of you would support killing any bourgeois pigs or other blatant counterrevolutionaries who continued to fight against the Proletarian movement after the revolution, correct? It's kill or be killed.

The Trotskyists aren't blatant counterrevolutionaries. They hide under the guise of being revolutionaries themselves, and infiltrate the revolution. Then through revision and spite, rot the party from inside out.


Fighting the blatant counterrevolutionaries is easy, but with the Trotskyists, they must be nipped off early. As soon as the figurehead of a revolution dies, they will leap on it and install a capitalist dictatorship under the guise of Socialism. This is why there must be no trotskyists or revisionists left.

This is Stalin's greatest failure, that he did not leave safeguards in place that Trotskyists and other revisionists wouldn't seize power in his death.
If the counterrevolutionaries are using violence and cannot be reasoned with or for whatever reason can't be exiled then yes I would fight back. Trots are not counterrevolutionary though. On top of that you made a massive contradiction in the above post. You said you would agree on fighting BLATANT counterrevolutionaries or Capitalist pigs. You never said about subtle and then preceded to call Trots subtle counterrevolutionaries. So the whole beginning of your argument is nonsense. The last is nonsensical as well and is simply Stalin worship nonsense. You should be dedicated to Communism and not a man. You can say he followed and pushed for Communism but such worship is quite disturbing. Follow an ideology not a man.

[Palingenisis]

The fact that you identify Khrushchev as a Trotskyist is laughable evidence that you don't have a clue what you're blathering about.

Why is it necessarily laughable?

Khrushchev was much more authoritarian than Stalin and yet criticized Stalin for being too authoritarian...Both him and Trotsky in many other ways too shared a similar approach to both the peoples of the USSR and Comrade Stalin who is definitely one of the greatest men that ever lived....hence the comparison has some validity.

[Nolan]

Mannimarco, give it a rest, troll.

And robbo203, we've all heard your sermon about how we have to wait until all the stars and planets are aligned and the proletariat is almost unanimously begging for socialism. Please do us all a big favor and abstain from repeating yourself.

[Hit The North]

Why is it necessarily laughable?

Khrushchev was much more authoritarian than Stalin and yet criticized Stalin for being too authoritarian...Both him and Trotsky in many other ways too shared a similar approach to both the peoples of the USSR and Comrade Stalin who is definitely one of the greatest men that ever lived....hence the comparison has some validity.

How do you possibly quantify the statement that Khrushchev was more authoritarian than Stalin?

As for Khrushchev being a Trotskyist, are you referring to his support for the theory of permanent revolution (which he didn't hold) or his implementation of a transitional program (which he didn't implement), or perhaps it is his membership of the 4th International :lol:? Please stop spouting nonsense.

As for Stalin being "one of the greatest men that ever lived," you're entitled to your own opinion, no matter how many tens of thousands of corpses of old Bolsheviks and workers you have to spit on, in order to have it. :glare:

[EvilRedGuy]

I feel like something huge is gonna happen. *Orgasm*

[Marxach-Léinínach]

Why is it necessarily laughable?

Khrushchev was much more authoritarian than Stalin and yet criticized Stalin for being too authoritarian...Both him and Trotsky in many other ways too shared a similar approach to both the peoples of the USSR and Comrade Stalin who is definitely one of the greatest men that ever lived....hence the comparison has some validity.

Plus Khrushchov was originally a trotskyite during the 20s as well.

[red cat]

Plus Khrushchov was originally a trotskyite during the 20s as well.

Never heard this before. Source ?

[progressive_lefty]

The 3 wars of the USA, the Korean crisis, global economic meltdown, riots in the Eurozone, revolutions in Latin America all conspire to convince me that a general upheaval is about to occur in the world. The world is sitting on an open powder magazine and any spark is going to ignite it.

I totally disagree, the media is completely beating things up. There was barely anyone at the rallies in Europe. And plus, a Korean war is unlikely, because essentially Koreans do not want to be in the business of killing many and many Koreans. This is just confrontation, old man Kim obviously hates the Americans and the current South Korean establishment, but I think he would sympathise with the innocent Korean people of the South.

[Marxach-Léinínach]

Never heard this before. Source ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khrushchev

"He briefly joined supporters of Leon Trotsky against those of Joseph Stalin over the question of party democracy."

Kaganovich talks about it here as well in the section "Khrushchev had supported Trotsky" - http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv1n2/chuyev.htm

[Hit The North]

It's a matter of record that Khrushchev briefly sided with Trotsky over the issue of party democracy in the mid twenties. But it is ludicrous to say he was "originally a Trotskyist". He was never a Trotskyist in any meaningful sense. In fact he was "originally" a Menshevik but joined the Bolsheviks in 1918, after the revolution. By the 1930s he had enthusiastically embraced the purges and show trials which included many of his friends and close colleagues.

[Morgenstern]

If anything starts in the year of 2012 I'll laugh. Anyway, something huge is always happening you're just more intuned now since the media is paying more attention to these conflicts rather than Paris Hilton. Also Trotsky>Stalin, Trotsky has better hair.

[Mannimarco]

If anything starts in the year of 2012 I'll laugh. Anyway, something huge is always happening you're just more intuned now since the media is paying more attention to these conflicts rather than Paris Hilton. Also Trotsky>Stalin, Trotsky has better hair.


If Stalin and Trotsky got into a most manliest mustache fight, Stalin would win 10/10

[ZeroNowhere]

This thread seems to have begun on what I think is a signficant point, namely that there's a hell of a lot happening presently, and somehow gone on to Trotsky, Stalin, and how Trotskyist Khruschev was. Perhaps we would be best off not continuing this particular line of discussion?

[danyboy27]

There will never be unity by mutual agreement. We Stalinists must cut down every last Trotskyist and anarchist.. Then we will have unity.

All talk no action.

all the tendency you vow to destroy outnumber you 5 to 1 in number and you want to destroy them? good luck pal.

[maxs154]

All of us need to unite if we want to be able to do anything. We need to unify as one and start a strong communist movement in the U.S. I am tires of these capitalist pigs taking advantage of the working class F*ck the red scare. This is our time, we have to put aside our differences and fight the power. :huh:

[Amphictyonis]

All talk no action.

all the tendency you vow to destroy outnumber you 5 to 1 in number and you want to destroy them? good luck pal.


http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Forum_Trolling#RevLeft

I guess I fell victim to trolling?

[Mannimarco]

All talk no action.

all the tendency you vow to destroy outnumber you 5 to 1 in number and you want to destroy them? good luck pal.

We will win, because we are right and they are wrong.

[bailey_187]

LOL @

1) Krushchev being more authortarian than Stalin
2) Krushchev being a Trot

Shit like this, along with other delusions such as Trotsky being an imperialist secret agent, make me embarrsed to call myself a marxist-leninist.

[Amphictyonis]

We will win, because we are right and they are wrong.

Maybe you should take that "workers of the world unite" quote of your sig? Thats never going to happen so long as REVISIONISTS such as yourselves are warping Marxism into some lame sectarian cock fest.

Here's an idea, gather all the "anti revisionists" (Stalinists) and go build communism in one country....lets say, anywhere where there is no anarchists or trots? Do you guys even know what the word revision means? Shall we count the ways Stalin mangled Marxism?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I'm not trolling. There's a deep emotion and historical rift between Trotskyists and Stalinists, Anarchists and Communists, that will only be solved by violent. Our views clash far too heavily for permanent unity. Particular in the extremely reactionary reviews of the trotskyists.

My post may be trollish, but I meant it.

Just quickly - fuck off then. You're out of line and out of touch. You'll not persuade a soul (out of the 99.9% of the population that is currently not already pro-Stalin) of the arguments for Socialism and Marxism with bullshit like that.

OT: I too, feel like we are approaching a moment in history where the forces of class conflict are drawing us to, as you might say, a 'moment'. However, whether we have done enough, in terms of building the movement, in preparation in the past 10-20 years is far from certain.

We have only ourselves to blame if nothing concrete comes from the current set of economic forces set in motion by the bolivarian revolutions in Latin America, the current crisis of Capitalism in Europe in particular and certain goings on in places like Nepal.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

The Trotskyists aren't blatant counterrevolutionaries. They hide under the guise of being revolutionaries themselves, and infiltrate the revolution. Then through revision and spite, rot the party from inside out.


Wow, as someone who grew up in a Jewish household, you remind me of a terrible, terrible person.

[Mannimarco]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJAuIPwjDw4

[Mannimarco]

LOL @

1) Krushchev being more authortarian than Stalin
2) Krushchev being a Trot

Shit like this, along with other delusions such as Trotsky being an imperialist secret agent, make me embarrsed to call myself a marxist-leninist.

Have you ever heard of a little place called Kronstadt?

Trotsky had himself a little bit of massacring. Granted, it was a pathetic petite bourgeoisie revolution. But it just goes to show Trotsky was more authoritian than Stalin.

[Magón]

Have you ever heard of a little place called Kronstadt?

Trotsky had himself a little bit of massacring. Granted, it was a pathetic petite bourgeoisie revolution. But it just goes to show Trotsky was more authoritian than Stalin.

Even though Trotsky never ruled a nation, and Stalin did? Plus the fact that since Stalin had a lot more power than Trotsky, could have possibly (and I use that lightly), over done it with his power?

Yeah, Trotsky was totally more authoritarian than Stalin. :rolleyes:

[Aloysius]

Have you ever heard of a little place called Kronstadt?

http://shavarross.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/top-10-oh-no-you-didnt-videos.jpg

[bailey_187]

Have you ever heard of a little place called Kronstadt?

Trotsky had himself a little bit of massacring. Granted, it was a pathetic petite bourgeoisie revolution. But it just goes to show Trotsky was more authoritian than Stalin.

er....

what did Krushchev have to do with Krondstadt?

[Mannimarco]

er....

what did Krushchev have to do with Krondstadt?

You said Krushchev couldn't be Trotskyist because he's authoritian. But Kronstadt is an example of how Trotsky was even more authoritian than Stalin, as such, it debunks your arguement.

@Nin, Trotsky had power in the USSR, and was very authoritian about it. If he had had the chance to become a dictator, he would have taken it in a flash. If he was leader of the USSR, he'd be just as authoritian as Stalin, and even more ruthless.

[bailey_187]

You said Krushchev couldn't be Trotskyist because he's authoritian. But Kronstadt is an example of how Trotsky was even more authoritian than Stalin, as such, it debunks your arguement.


no.

Those were two seperate points.

POINT 1) Kruschev was not a Trot

Krushchev was not a Trot because he didnt carry out ANY of the policies Trotskyists wanted implemented in the USSR. Even Krushchev's biggest change in policy, the "peaceful coexsitance" is compleltly out of line with Trots.

UNRELATED POINT 2) Kruschev was not more authortarian than Stalin.

Now delusional types such as yourself will like to bring out one, maybe two if you know your history, isolated incidences. But when weighed up against eachother, overall, the Stalin period of the USSR was more authortarian than the Kruschev one.



Im not a Trot so i dont want ot get involved in the business of defending trotsky, ill let them to that, but your "proof" that Trotsky was the most authortarian is rediculosu. Was Trotsky authortarian? Yes, of course. As was Lenin, Stalin and many other Bolsheviks.

[Fulanito de Tal]

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2010/11/20101130124811926553.html

Medvedev warns of new arms race


Dmitry Medvedev, the Russian president, has warned that a new arms race could erupt if Russia and the West could not agree on building a missile defence system.

Speaking at his annual state of the nation address on Tuesday, Medvedev said questions remained about the proposed missile shield, which Russia has agreed to work on with Nato.

"In the coming decade we face the following alternatives: Either we reach agreement on missile defence and create a full-fledged joint mechanism of co-operation, or ... a new round of the arms race will begin," he said.

"And we will have to take a decision about the deployment of new offensive weapons. It is clear that this scenario would be very grave."

Earlier this month Russia and Nato agreed in Lisbon to look into ways in which the two could work together on a new continental shield, which the Kremlin has spent years resisting.

Countering perceptions

Medvedev has demanded that Russia be handed an equal say in the system's operations - a request that would require a never-before seen degree of military co-operation and intelligence sharing between Moscow and the West.

But the two sides have failed to agree on a list of countries that pose a threat, with the US identifying Iran and North Korea, two nations that Russia sees as relatively harmless in the near future.

Medvedev's comments come a day after secret US diplomatic documents released by WikiLeaks said the Russian president played "Robin to Putin's Batman", suggesting the prime minister and former president remains in charge of the country.

Neave Barker, Al Jazeera's correspondent in Moscow said Tuesday's address "countered, to an extent, perceptions that it’s really Medvedev's predecessor Vladimir Putin who's actually in charge".

"This is an attempt to show the nation that he is a capable leader who makes his own decisions - decisions that are no worse or even better than those made by Putin," Alexander Konovalov, head of the Strategic Assessment Institute said.

But others said Medvedev's comments masked a serious Russian concern: that the shield could one day be transformed into an offensive system that rains down missiles and even nuclear bombs.

"Medvedev wants a legally-binding agreement that says that the European interceptors will never be aimed at Russia," Pavel Felgenhauer, a military analyst told the AFP news agency.

He said that Russia is concerned that Nato could develop this capability by about 2025, too soon for Moscow to develop any meaningful response

[Soseloshvili]

This thread predates the Arab Spring.

You are officially the massiah for predicting such an uprising.

[hatzel]

This thread predates the Arab Spring.

You are officially the massiah for predicting such an uprising.

Yeeeeeah, it was definitely worth necroing this one to point that out...:rolleyes:

[RedSonRising]

The way Imperialist states are controlling the process of globalization, the subjugated nations victims to neo-colonialism are going to break away and deprive the United States-as well as other power blocks-of their resources and influence. This will be the opportunity for those in USA/Europe to revolutionize their own countries. The 60's revisited with much more blood, I'm afraid.

You export the same model of sweat-shop/police-state/labor-assassinated oppression, and you globalize revolutionary anti-capitalism.

[IndependentCitizen]

Wait, so if they don't build a missile defence system, they'll just spend loads of money on weapons instead, despite the global economic crisis.


There's no logic in that..

[Luís Henrique]

because it would be used by china and various emerging superpowers as a chance to destroy the imperialist powers and become the new top dogs themselves.

What new emerging superpowers?

China's currency is tied to the dollar. Is there any sign this is changing?

Russia is isolated and unable to make its presence felt beyond the limited area of the ex-Soviet Union. It has indeed yet to reassert its dominance over its backyard.

India and Brazil, emerging superpowers? Let me laugh. Brazil has made some moves to show a more assertive presence in world diplomacy, but it lacks a military, does not export capital, and, on the contrary, has its economy deeply penetrated by American, Japanese, and European capital.

Time will probably come when open fight for imperialist predominance will erupt - but in the foreseeable future what August Thalheimer called "antagonistic cooperation" is to continue.

The important rising tensions are not between different countries, but within a few countries - namely the "Arab world" and the European periphery, also known as PIGS.

Luís Henrique

[chegitz guevara]

The 3 wars of the USA, the Korean crisis, global economic meltdown, riots in the Eurozone, revolutions in Latin America all conspire to convince me that a general upheaval is about to occur in the world. The world is sitting on an open powder magazine and any spark is going to ignite it.

I don't know if this portends for good or evil but I feel like Lenin felt prior to WWI breaking out. He said it himself, "I feel something huge is going to happen."

:eek::che::w00t::hammersickle::marx::reda::star::c astro::mad::scared::trotski::star3::cubaflag::engl es::blackA::ninja::star2:

This maybe? :cool:
http://www.ebiblefellowship.com/may21/

[Soseloshvili]

Yeeeeeah, it was definitely worth necroing this one to point that out...:rolleyes:

I was cleaning out my subscriptions... I found this... I had to post something.

What can I say. It was funny to me.

[DDR]

This maybe? :cool:
http://www.ebiblefellowship.com/may21/

C'mon, no african pope?

[☭The Revolution☭]

This era is coming to a close, and a new era is going to be brought in by a massive event - world wide. This is why we need to unite. The world is in a state of revolutionary activity that we haven't seen since the first half of the 20th century. I have an idea, but I am going to be making a separate thread about it, hopefully tomorrow. Watch me, people. You'll see something coming up from me soon.

[CAleftist]

Many huge things are happening. Of course, with capitalism, the development is uneven.

So you don't have one huge, homogenous singular event, but rather cracks, leaks, and tears at the seams that will (and are) snowball.

[La Comédie Noire]

I think we're all going to be 40 year olds shocked by the exuberance and tenacity of the younger generation. I'd like to be younger for it, but that's the pace of things I suppose.

[agnixie]

Many huge things are happening. Of course, with capitalism, the development is uneven.

So you don't have one huge, homogenous singular event, but rather cracks, leaks, and tears at the seams that will (and are) snowball.

IDK, if the threats that the US might default on debt happen, we might have a singular event. Of course it would be the nuclear option for capitalism and nobody is that suicidal but who knows.

[Rakhmetov]

"There are decades when nothing happens and there are weeks when decades happen."--- Lenin

Everything will change to their complete opposite as per dialectical materialism. We have to be ready with an outstanding vanguard party that will be militant enough to wrest power away from the Coca-Cola Republicans and Pepsi-Cola Democrats. :cool: