Your typical STALINIST

[bailey_187]

see man used to think that the avergae stalinist was like some old old trade unionist person.

BUT THEY ARENT ARE THEY?

[ZeroNowhere]

What is it with you and capital letters?

[bailey_187]

Emphasis, darg.

[Bright Banana Beard]

Am I also a typical Stalinist? :lol:

[Pirate Utopian]

They seem to be in their twenties and into anime.

[Bright Banana Beard]

They seem to be in their twenties and into anime.

You meant the RevLeft's Stalinist resident?

[Pirate Utopian]

Most Revleft Stalinists.

[bailey_187]

Am I also a typical Stalinist? :lol:

dno brah

[bailey_187]

They seem to be in their twenties and into anime.

yeah thats what im saying darg

[GPDP]

http://www.japanesestreets.com/media/2256.jpg

If you've never worn one of these bad boys, you don't know shit about Stalinism.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Am I also a typical Stalinist? :lol:
No

[Ovi]

Am I also a typical Stalinist? :lol:
You're a Stalinist wannabe.

[Magón]

You meant the RevLeft's Stalinist resident?

I think Stalinists outside of RevLeft too.

[Os Cangaceiros]

http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/assets_c/2009/01/anime-los-angeles-convention.2900639.56-thumb-480x320.jpg

Who wants to bet that they could tell you all about how all of the deaths attributed to Stalin's regime were the unfortunate-but-unavoidable result of a poor crop harvest?

[Kléber]

http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/2669/stalinite.jpg

*High-pitched voice and offensive put-on accent* "Greetings, I am doll-chan! Combat modern revisionism, desu ne!"

[Palingenisis]

*High-pitched voice and offensive put-on accent* "Greetings, I am doll-chan! Combat modern revisionism, desu ne!"

The average "Stalinist" is a third world girl with a gun.

[Palingenisis]

They seem to be in their twenties and into anime.

I have NO interest in Anime.

Im in my twenties and I hate students.

That makes me I think the average Stalinist.

[Sasha]

arent you female? sorry, not be sexist, but to my experience that already makes you 100% not the average stalinist.
never met an non-male stalinist in my life IRL and i think that also online the percentages of females under stalinist are even worse than under anarchists and even (gulp) trots.

[Widerstand]

I have NO interest in Anime.

Im in my twenties and I hate students.

That makes me I think the average Stalinist.

>mid twenties
>stalinist

nope.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

I have NO interest in Anime.

Im in my twenties and I hate students.

That makes me I think the average Stalinist.

Do you hate students because they don't require a vanguard to tell them they're angry and that the current economic system is a failure..?

[Who?]

Gosh, well, I'm not exactly a blind supporter of Stalin but as long as we're jokin' here...

Average anarchist:
http://www.mattcutts.com/images/matt-cutts-punk-rock.jpg

Average Trotskyist:
http://image.sporttruck.com/f/14834276/0904st_04_z+custom_chevy_trucks+paper_boy.jpg

[Magón]

do you hate students because they don't require a vanguard to tell them they're angry and that the current economic system is a failure..?

duh!!!!!

[Palingenisis]

Do you hate students because they don't require a vanguard to tell them they're angry and that the current economic system is a failure..?

Oh...Well Im sure that daddy can get them out of jail and their wadical past will be oh so forgotten once they get that degree.

[Palingenisis]

arent you female?.

As I said before the average "Stalinist" is a third world girl with a gun.

[Nuvem]

I would argue that young females in third world countries comprise a relatively small minority of Stalinists, if we want to be literal here.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

Oh...Well Im sure that daddy can get them out of jail and their wadical past will be oh so forgotten once they get that degree.

Clearly you've not met many students.

[Widerstand]

Do you hate students because they don't require a vanguard to tell them they're angry and that the current economic system is a failure..?

I think she hates us cos we not prole enough.

Boils down to the same thing I guess.

Can't be smart and prole.

[Jazzratt]

Oh...Well Im sure that daddy can get them out of jail and their wadical past will be oh so forgotten once they get that degree. You're a fucking moron. Everyone who takes this sort of idiot position against students is speaking either from jealousy or regret. I am not a student and, given my financial circumstances and recent changes (you might have heard a little about them, actually) I'm unlikely ever to be but I can still tell you're full of shit.

Life has changed a lot since the days when "student" was synonymous with "moneyed ponce living on parental cash".

[Widerstand]

Actually I'm living on parental cash right now because there's no way in hell I could get a job that'd pay enough to afford food, rent and tuition fees, let alone anyone that would rent me a room with no financial backup whatsoever.

I dunno, I guess I'm just really reactionary.

[Salyut]

Yes.

I'm dead serious. I've met old time CPC members from the Tim Buck days. They are indeed old people.

[gorillafuck]

Oh...Well Im sure that daddy can get them out of jail and their wadical past will be oh so forgotten once they get that degree.
It's been a while since student was synonymous with rich. Also, it's stupid to hate people for being in better financial situations than you. Should they just become intentionally poorer? That wouldn't help people.

[Blackscare]

Oh...Well Im sure that daddy can get them out of jail and their wadical past will be oh so forgotten once they get that degree.


Fuck you, dickhead, I work my nads off making minimum wage to pay for my shitty community college so that hopefully I can get the qualifications to write/teach further down the line, I don't got anybody pulling my weight for me.


Also, I think that these days most "third world girls with guns" are Maoists, just sayin. I'm not really sure what your insistence is that they're all girls is all about, though. I'm obviously not against women fighting/etc, but it's still reality that most fighting forces today are male-dominated.

Methinks you're projecting about what you'd like to be doing a tad bit, and venting that you're a first-world computer jockey that hates people going to school (for some inane reason, LOL).

[Pavlov's House Party]

You're a fucking moron. Everyone who takes this sort of idiot position against students is speaking either from jealousy or regret. I am not a student and, given my financial circumstances and recent changes (you might have heard a little about them, actually) I'm unlikely ever to be but I can still tell you're full of shit.

Life has changed a lot since the days when "student" was synonymous with "moneyed ponce living on parental cash".

true that

most jobs that provide a living wage require some form of higher or technical education; even having a BA now barely means anything for potential employers.

[9]

http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/2669/stalinite.jpg

*High-pitched voice and offensive put-on accent* "Greetings, I am doll-chan! Combat modern revisionism, desu ne!"

i just embarrassed the hell out of myself by laughing out loud over this... :lol:

[Il Medico]

Oh...Well Im sure that daddy can get them out of jail and their wadical past will be oh so forgotten once they get that degree.
You're a fucking idiot.

[Quail]

Oh...Well Im sure that daddy can get them out of jail and their wadical past will be oh so forgotten once they get that degree.
http://i641.photobucket.com/albums/uu131/KevlarPaperclip/double-facepalm.jpg

Student parent, needing benefits to pay my rent, etc, etc.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Oh...Well Im sure that daddy can get them out of jail and their wadical past will be oh so forgotten once they get that degree.
I've been a student, my dad and I are not completely on the best terms. I guess it's not easy to come to grips with the realization that your 'son' turned out to be your daughter.


Of course, due to the bros on college campuses these days, I'd rather not go back to school.

[Pirate Utopian]

I hate students.
Well fuck you too.

[Bandito]

I'll say it again, because it doesn't seem to be working.

There are no Stalinists. That does not exist. There are lots of political tendencies that defend some positions of the Soviet Union lead by Joseph Stalin, but those people are not Stalinists.

[Wanted Man]

They seem to be in their twenties and into anime.

What if you are in your 20s and only mildly appreciate anime every few weeks or so?

[Os Cangaceiros]

Then perhaps you're lukewarm insofar as whether or not it's just to rape and torture the enemies of the people.

[Pretty Flaco]

I'm more of a stalinist than stalin himself, baby

[Devrim]

The Stalinists I remember, and both my father and grandfather were Stalinists, are the ones I know in my youth, middle-aged men in the mid-ranks of the trade union bureaucracy. There are nowhere near as many around today as there used to be.

Devrim

[revolution inaction]

the only Stalinist i've ever met was about 70

[Zanthorus]

I've never met a Stalinist, and don't really have any idea what a stereotypical Stalinist should look like, so I couldn't say. To be honest, I don't have a particularly good idea of what your average Socialist of any stripe would be like. The only ones I have met in real life were two members of the ICC who were nice enough to come down to Swindon and meet me. There didn't seem to be anything distinctive about them, they were fairly average, except for the fact that they could ramble on for hours about the history of working-class struggle obviously.

[Os Cangaceiros]

The only ones I have met in real life were two members of the ICC who were nice enough to come down to Swindon and meet me. There didn't seem to be anything distinctive about them, they were fairly average, except for the fact that they could ramble on for hours about the history of working-class struggle obviously.

I bet that they were white, though, weren't they? I've heard on this board that you're more likely to meet a wish-granting unicorn than a non-white, non-Eurocentric left communist.

[Devrim]

I bet that they were white, though, weren't they? I've heard on this board that you're more likely to meet a wish-granting unicorn than a non-white, non-Eurocentric left communist.

I was in India in the spring, and I met the ICC section there, none of whom were very white. There are also people in the UK section who aren't white.

Devrim

[black magick hustla]

I bet that they were white, though, weren't they? I've heard on this board that you're more likely to meet a wish-granting unicorn than a non-white, non-Eurocentric left communist.

the second biggest section in the icc is the mexa one and theres a shitton of immigrants in the icc sympathizer circle, some of them mexican, some of them nigerian so no

[Palingenisis]

The Stalinists I remember, and both my father and grandfather were Stalinists, are the ones I know in my youth, middle-aged men in the mid-ranks of the trade union bureaucracy. There are nowhere near as many around today as there used to be.

Devrim

There are probably no where near as many Left Communists either. And Stalinist is such a vague term.

[Os Cangaceiros]

the second biggest section in the icc is the mexa one and theres a shitton of immigrants in the icc sympathizer circle, some of them mexican, some of them nigerian so no

That cannot be true

[Jazzratt]

I bet that they were white, though, weren't they? I've heard on this board that you're more likely to meet a wish-granting unicorn than a non-white, non-Eurocentric left communist. Just out of curiosity, and given what the posters above have said, is it possible that you heard this from someone on this site who wasn't a left-com and in fact had an interest in discrediting them in some way?

[9]

lol guys explosive situation was joking.

[Who?]

There are probably no where near as many Left Communists either. And Stalinist is such a vague term.

I'm pretty sure that Marxist-Leninists compose the largest sect within the international communist movement.

[Jazzratt]

Last may day in London NoXion ended up marching with some Stalinists because they'd disguised themselves as anarchists (black hoodies, punky get-up all that carry on) :lol: I think they were quite "non typical" though.

[Devrim]

There are probably no where near as many Left Communists either. And Stalinist is such a vague term.

We come from different generations, Palingenisis. To me 'Stalinist' isn't a vague term. It referred to the pro-Moscow communist parties, or the sections of the CPs which were pro-Moscow.

Of course during the 1990s all groups that called themselves socialist or communist shrunk by as much as half or even more.

For the Stalinists the process was even worse. Unlike left communists who were only tiny groups anyway, the Stalinist parties even in their weakest countries had thousands and even tens of thousands of workers. Now they barely exist. Their collapse has been much more marked and total.

Devim

[Tablo]

Only Stalinist I know is a female student. I know a LOT more anarchists.

[Quail]

Last may day in London NoXion ended up marching with some Stalinists because they'd disguised themselves as anarchists (black hoodies, punky get-up all that carry on) :lol: I think they were quite "non typical" though.
Didn't they have any flags or banners? :lol:

[Jazzratt]

Didn't they have any flags or banners? :lol: They had one, it was black and said some generic lefty stuff, had AKs and hammers & sickle symbols on it plus the name of the group. NoXion ended up carrying half of it, I believe.

[Quail]

They had one, it was black and said some generic lefty stuff, had AKs and hammers & sickle symbols on it plus the name of the group. NoXion ended up carrying half of it, I believe.
Haha, embarrassing.

[Wanted Man]

I think I like the average Stalinists of Greece.

http://lh5.ggpht.com/_-ywULpyWE2c/TJh8kAGwWyI/AAAAAAAACMM/vX4SpJc9pl4/s640/getImage.do24.jpg

[Widerstand]

I'm pretty sure that Marxist-Leninists compose the largest sect within the international communist movement.

Well seeing how that includes all the lot of Trots, "ML"s, Stalinists, Maoists and to some extent Left Comms, this certainly is ture.

[Zanthorus]

It might be true if 'Marxist-Leninist' referred to anyone who was a follower of Lenin or in some way a part of the same political current. That is not how the term 'Marxist-Leninist' is commonly used by it's supporters though, and most of it's detractors would probably not identify as 'Marxist-Leninist'.

[Dimentio]

There are several different sub-species of stalinists.

Ordinary Stalinist

The usual member of an official anti-revisionist party to some extent. Is usually male, though females could exist. Usually hold very hostile views against other parties, the closer ideologically the more hostile, due to competition over members and votes. Is generally well-versed in history and specifics. Ages 18-80, usually between 20 and 30.

Red Alert Stalinist/Stalin-kiddie

Predominantly male. Are most often unorganised, though they tend to form short-lived political parties through freeware website platforms or blogs through the internet. Do usually not know so much about history or ideology, but are glorifying the RED ARMY and the T-34 TANK. Have a tendency to write in big letters. Usual age range is 13-20.

Great Russian Stalinist

Stalinists from Russia and other former USSR countries. Predominantly male. Generally espouses a high degree of (biased) knowledge on history, coupled with little to none communist political conviction. Are liking Stalin because he was a great leader who industrialised the USSR, made "Mother Russia" a superpower and defeated the Nazis. In general this group are holding reactionary social convictions. Age range 15-80, though the supporters tend to consist of people who actually lived through Stalin's reign and people who have never experienced the USSR.

Tankie

Stalinists who support the intervention in Czechoslovakia and uphold the Soviet Union until Gorbachev.

Hoxhaist

Like number one, but with even more sectarianism. Predominantly male.

Maoist

Are generally glorifying Mao instead of Stalin, and focusing more on anti-racism and "new politics" than the typical stalinists. Predominantly male, though there is are comparatively more females active.

Maoist-Third Worldist

A modern variant of the flagellants. Generally consisting of students in western universities who are atoning for the sins of being born in a western country by verbally attacking western workers for having it somewhat better than workers in other countries. More studies required.

Jucheite

In western countries generally belonging to the same category as the second group. The same for westerners who worship such authorities Saddam, Idi Amin, Osama and Eric "Reb" Harris.

Miscellaneous

Whatever floats your boat

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

There are several different sub-species of stalinists.

Ordinary Stalinist

The usual member of an official anti-revisionist party to some extent. Is usually male, though females could exist. Usually hold very hostile views against other parties, the closer ideologically the more hostile, due to competition over members and votes. Is generally well-versed in history and specifics. Ages 18-80, usually between 20 and 30.

Red Alert Stalinist/Stalin-kiddie

Predominantly male. Are most often unorganised, though they tend to form short-lived political parties through freeware website platforms or blogs through the internet. Do usually not know so much about history or ideology, but are glorifying the RED ARMY and the T-34 TANK. Have a tendency to write in big letters. Usual age range is 13-20.

Great Russian Stalinist

Stalinists from Russia and other former USSR countries. Predominantly male. Generally espouses a high degree of (biased) knowledge on history, coupled with little to none communist political conviction. Are liking Stalin because he was a great leader who industrialised the USSR, made "Mother Russia" a superpower and defeated the Nazis. In general this group are holding reactionary social convictions. Age range 15-80, though the supporters tend to consist of people who actually lived through Stalin's reign and people who have never experienced the USSR.

Tankie

Stalinists who support the intervention in Czechoslovakia and uphold the Soviet Union until Gorbachev.

Hoxhaist

Like number one, but with even more sectarianism. Predominantly male.

Maoist

Are generally glorifying Mao instead of Stalin, and focusing more on anti-racism and "new politics" than the typical stalinists. Predominantly male, though there is are comparatively more females active.

Maoist-Third Worldist

A modern variant of the flagellants. Generally consisting of students in western universities who are atoning for the sins of being born in a western country by verbally attacking western workers for having it somewhat better than workers in other countries. More studies required.

Jucheite

In western countries generally belonging to the same category as the second group. The same for westerners who worship such authorities Saddam, Idi Amin, Osama and Eric "Reb" Harris.

Miscellaneous

Whatever floats your boat

Jajaja! :laugh::laugh::laugh::lol::laugh:

[A.J.]

The reason why, in imperialist countries at least, "Stalinists"(Communist Party members) largely consist of elderly people is because - and I'm thinking of my late Grandfather here - during the Great Depression, the "hungry thirties" when deprivation and hardship stalked the globe, the mighty Soviet Union stood out as a shining example of socialism where the periodic crises of over-production and it's resultant social evils had been abolished.

J.V. Stalin and the Soviet Union provided hope for the future

Truly a beacon unto the international working class.


The Stalinists I remember, and both my father and grandfather were Stalinists, are the ones I know in my youth, middle-aged men in the mid-ranks of the trade union bureaucracy. There are nowhere near as many around today as there used to be.

Devrim

I always associate such persons(such as my father who was a full time T&G official in the late 80s/early90s) with the labour party. Their comfortable existences manifested itself in class-collabotarion, in pro-imperialist social democracy. (indeed, when my father was growing up in 1950s and 60s the living standards of the British working class were rising considerably)


The political-ideological differences between my father and late grandfather are essentially the reflection of different material conditions. Very much men of their times.

[IronEastBloc]

These are the only anarchists I've ever known of, mostly of the childish street-theatre and antics variety:

http://www.electricedge.com/greymatter/images5/shrimp.jpg

http://blog.oregonlive.com/oregonianspecial/2008/03/anarchist.jpg

http://zombietime.com/anarchist_bookfair_march_18_2006/IMG_5894.JPG (can't you just hear the dreaded capitalist state begging the anarchists to stop this torture?)

http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/bastard/anarchy3.jpg

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01366/Red-paint-protest_1366132i.jpg

and then there is this, which rings of truth:

http://www.rumorsdaily.com/brd/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/no-exit-libertarianism-anarchy-for-rich-people.GIF

so much for the romantic image of the anarchist revolutionary, ay? at least communists throughout the non-western world are still fighting the struggle.

[IronEastBloc]

I bet the state is just BEGGING the anarchists of the UK to stop the assault with deadly consequential tactics such as this:

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/49931000/jpg/_49931695_studentgetty.jpg

[Os Cangaceiros]

damn dude, let me speak collectively for all the anarchists/libsocs on here and ask if you're willing to give us any cream for that sick burn :blushing:

[Rafiq]

There are probably no where near as many Left Communists either. And Stalinist is such a vague term.




That doesn't matter, it still doesn't change the fact that Left Communism makes a lot more sense.

[Quail]

I bet the state is just BEGGING the anarchists of the UK to stop the assault with deadly consequential tactics such as this:

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/49931000/jpg/_49931695_studentgetty.jpg
Ha ha ha.

Or maybe we might, you know, be planning some direct action instead of wanking over Stalin.

[Devrim]

These are the only anarchists I've ever known of, mostly of the childish street-theatre and antics variety:

I think that the question that this really on is whether this reflects on anarchists or yourself.

Of course as we know, there are a lot of liberals who pass themselves off as anarchists.

Iused to belong to an anarchist organistion, DAM ( now Solfed) the UK section of the IWA. I am not going to talk about anarchists I met while I was in DAM who had been involved in the Russian and Spanish revolutions though of course I did meet those people.

I also knew the anarchists who organised the only workplace strike against the Poll Tax (Brixton DHSS), anarchists who were involved in big building worker struggles like the Langs lockout, anarchists who were involved in organisng wildcat strikes in the London Post Office and hospitals.

These were just people I knew from DAM in London.

Of course there are people who pass themselves off as anarchists who are basically just liberals or hippies. I don't at all think that this applies to real anarchists though.

I would imagine that your impression of anarchists is more based upon the social circles you move in than anarchism as it really is.

Devrim

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Ha ha ha.

Or maybe we might, you know, be planning some direct action instead of wanking over Stalin.
Who can resist the urge to self stimulate over some angry guy with a porno mustache?:rolleyes:

[Palingenisis]

We come from different generations, Palingenisis. To me 'Stalinist' isn't a vague term. It referred to the pro-Moscow communist parties, or the sections of the CPs which were pro-Moscow.


The "Stalinists" split from Moscow in the 1950s and early to mid-60s.

To be pro-Moscow meant to be anti-Stalin.

[Kléber]

The "Stalinists" split from Moscow in the 1950s and early to mid-60s.

To be pro-Moscow meant to be anti-Stalin.
Pro-Soviet, pro-Chinese and pro-Albanian parties were all Stalinist. Khrushchev may have customarily denounced his predecessor for mistakes and excesses, which Mao and Hoxha used as an excuse for their sectarian splits, but the CPSU and its dependent parties did not repudiate bureaucratic rule, "socialism in one country" or the revisionist theses of the Stalinized Comintern.

[IronEastBloc]

Ha ha ha.

Or maybe we might, you know, be planning some direct action instead of wanking over Stalin.

That wasn't even a comeback. "planning direct action"? like what? Anarchist Federation has been around since the 80's, Anarchist Bookfare has been around longer...where has been the success of anarchist groups? you turned over a police car and you mildly irritated a police officer. GREAT JOB on disestablishing the state :laugh:

meanwhile, Marxist-Leninists in India and Africa and the middle east continue to make gains...where has been all the matching anarchist successes? oh thats right you guys destroyed a department store window...SO punk rock dude! :lol:

[Sir Comradical]

http://www.japanesestreets.com/media/2256.jpg

If you've never worn one of these bad boys, you don't know shit about Stalinism.

Definitely a staple for stalinist role-play sex; 'ready for soviet invasion?'.

[Spawn of Stalin]

Me and my girl have sex under a picture of Stalin. No word of a lie.

[Sir Comradical]

Me and my girl have sex under a picture of Stalin. No word of a lie.

rofl.

That sounds cool and weird at the same time, but whatever floats your boat.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Me and my girl have sex under a picture of Stalin. No word of a lie.
That actually sounds kind of hot.

[Spawn of Stalin]

It's just coincidential that we have a large portrait of Joe hanging above our bed, it's not like we do it just because we like to feel like he's watching us or anything.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

It's just coincidential that we have a large portrait of Joe hanging above our bed, it's not like we do it just because we like to feel like he's watching us or anything.
Well then I could say the same thing about my fiance and I with the Mexican flag. Although even there that'd be pushing it since we don't always stick to the bedroom.

[Rafiq]

The "Stalinists" split from Moscow in the 1950s and early to mid-60s.

To be pro-Moscow meant to be anti-Stalin.

Khruschev was pretty much the same as Stalin... Besides the fact that he took down Gulags...

[IronEastBloc]

Khruschev was pretty much the same as Stalin... Besides the fact that he took down Gulags...

I don't get this western-leftist obsession with trying to disown and denounce the gulags.

The Gulag system was necessary. the USSR was full of enemies, and contrary to popular belief, they were not "death camps" but rather had a purpose in collective labor. The USSR wasn't afraid of execution. it was easier to execute someone than to send them to Siberia.

[IronEastBloc]

It's just coincidential that we have a large portrait of Joe hanging above our bed, it's not like we do it just because we like to feel like he's watching us or anything.

I have a bust of Stalin on my book case, next to my bust of Lenin (with a bust of Marx in the Middle)

[Lord Testicles]

Your average British stalinist:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2458/3950718495_e100fbcc5c.jpg

Making sure nobody will want to talk to them.

[L.A.P.]

Gosh, well, I'm not exactly a blind supporter of Stalin but as long as we're jokin' here...

Average anarchist:
http://www.mattcutts.com/images/matt-cutts-punk-rock.jpg

Average Trotskyist:
http://image.sporttruck.com/f/14834276/0904st_04_z+custom_chevy_trucks+paper_boy.jpg

I always imagined the hipster being a Left Communist and the nerd as a Trostkyist.

FQt7312M4io

[Thirsty Crow]

Oh...Well Im sure that daddy can get them out of jail and their wadical past will be oh so forgotten once they get that degree.

Sure, once that degree gets me a dream job which will further enable me to scale the ranks of the management until one day I will possess sufficient capital to start directly exploiting the workers myself.

Geez, thirdworldists live in another world, where being a student necessarily equates with "(going to be) wealthy and well off". Pitiful.

[IronEastBloc]

Your average British stalinist:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2458/3950718495_e100fbcc5c.jpg

Making sure nobody will want to talk to them.

Really? I thought that was Russia since most people still have a high reverence for him there:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7802485.stm

[John "Eh" MacDonald]

Why is it that "stalinists" all have the same 'fuck you I'm right' attitude.

[IronEastBloc]

Why is it that "stalinists" all have the same 'fuck you I'm right' attitude.

why is it that all the Trots have the same "fuck you you're wrong" attitude?

[John "Eh" MacDonald]

why is it that all the Trots have the same "fuck you you're wrong" attitude?

Because y'all are wrong.:cool:

[Lord Testicles]

Really? I thought that was Russia since most people still have a high reverence for him there:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7802485.stm

Yeah, it's definitely Britain, notice the London bus in the background or the fact that they have CPGB-ML on their tops.

[Red Commissar]

Bah, they all pale in comparison to the Forkliftists.

[Obs]

Im in my twenties and I hate students.
But... but we can be anti-revisionist, too! :crying:

Edit: oh shit this thread is 5 pages long. I did NOT see that.

[Spawn of Stalin]

Really? I thought that was Russia since most people still have a high reverence for him there:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7802485.stm

On the last May 1st march I had two Russians (tourists I presume) thank me for marching with that portrait, was pretty humbling to be honest.

[Palingenisis]

That actually sounds kind of hot.

Stop it! :blushing:

[Who?]

No offense to the CPGB-ML or anything, I'm actually a supporter of your organization, but don't you think that marching around with a giant portrait of Stalin may isolate potential working class allies?

Stalin just has sort of a PR problem in most western nations, you know?

[Widerstand]

No offense to the CPGB-ML or anything, I'm actually a supporter of your organization, but don't you think that marching around with a giant portrait of Stalin may isolate potential working class allies?

The only ones scared away are reactionary agents who will be sent to the gulag anyway.

[Rafiq]

I don't get this western-leftist obsession with trying to disown and denounce the gulags.

The Gulag system was necessary. the USSR was full of enemies, and contrary to popular belief, they were not "death camps" but rather had a purpose in collective labor. The USSR wasn't afraid of execution. it was easier to execute someone than to send them to Siberia.

First off, what do you mean 'Western-Leftist'.

You know that the Left itself originated from the West, right?

Secondly, that is complete rubbish. The gulag system was terrible.

[Rafiq]

win ^^^^

Once again, the fallacy of the rep system in Chit Chat has driven to my disadvantage.

[NoOneIsIllegal]

You don't have to reply to IronEastBloc Sankara's trolling, he was banned again.

[Spawn of Stalin]

No offense to the CPGB-ML or anything, I'm actually a supporter of your organization, but don't you think that marching around with a giant portrait of Stalin may isolate potential working class allies?

Stalin just has sort of a PR problem in most western nations, you know?

Yes he does, but so does Communism, simply using the word Communism does exactly the same thing: isolates potential allies (the vast majority of workers), if we knew what was good for us (and I mean ALL of us, from Trotskyites, to anarchists, to left coms) we would just give up and join social democratic parties, but of course that would make us cowards. The thing is we are openly and proudly supportive of the role of Stalin in working class politics, so as far as we are concerned carrying a massive picture of the guy is far better than resorting to the tactics of certain other groups who seemingly hide the fact that they support such figures (even Lenin).

[Spawn of Stalin]

The only other two options would be 1. to denounce Stalin and "Stalinism", which, given that we all (the Party) knows how important of a figure he was and is would just prove us to be uncommitted and lacking conviction, or 2. hide the fact that we support Stalin, prompting rumours and accusations about how we are "secretly" a Stalin cult. It's just better to be honest about we you believe and we believe Stalin was a great man and is a great symbol of revolutionary socialism. With a good Party it should always be what you see is what you get, we don't have anything to hide.

[Jazzratt]

hide the fact that we support Stalin, prompting rumours and accusations about how we are "secretly" a Stalin cult. I don't think the only options are to deny any accusations of stalinism at all or carry fuck-off huge pictures of him when you're out and about. I mean yeah, if your lot are the only ones around it's fine but the pictures of Stalin tend to make everyone who marches near you look like a selection of irrelevant twats as well.

[Widerstand]

The only other two options would be 1. to denounce Stalin and "Stalinism", which, given that we all (the Party) knows how important of a figure he was and is would just prove us to be uncommitted and lacking conviction, or 2. hide the fact that we support Stalin, prompting rumours and accusations about how we are "secretly" a Stalin cult. It's just better to be honest about we you believe and we believe Stalin was a great man and is a great symbol of revolutionary socialism. With a good Party it should always be what you see is what you get, we don't have anything to hide.

Person cults are awesome. :thumbup1:

[Spawn of Stalin]

Don't march near us then? How do you think it makes me feel when I have to march near a bunch of SWPers who have no grasp on class politics whatsoever? I feel like a massive prick! I hate being associated with them but I don't complain because their recruitment policy is their business, not mine. I might be able to sympathise with your criticisms a little more if it weren't for the fact that we only carry Stalin on May 1st, and that the only people who march near us are other anti-revisionists. So if you're embarressed that people don't take you seriously, don't blame it on the fact that you marched near Stalinists, we don't ask that you march near us.

You can talk about looking like irrelevant twats and all that, we are a small party, but those who march behind Stalin (not just CPGB-ML, but other parties whom we have positive relations with as well) easily have the biggest and loudest contingent on London May 1st.

But I mean, if it's a problem, join the Party and take it up with the CC.

[Thirsty Crow]

Better to be openly a Stalin cult than secretly, that's for sure. At least you can't fool anyone.

[Quail]

Your average British stalinist:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2458/3950718495_e100fbcc5c.jpg

Making sure nobody will want to talk to them.
:lol:

[Spawn of Stalin]

I don't get why the fact that that is the average British Stalinist is funny, or supposed to be funny, I know five of the people in that picture and they are just your regular people, they just look like anyone you could see in the street and think nothing of. I really don't understand the joke. The only thing that anyone could possibly find strange about that is they are carrying a portrait of Stalin, but they are Stalinists, what did you expect? A portrait of Tony Cliff?

[Lord Testicles]

Well it's not like the SWP march with a massive picture of Tony Cliff, not even if it is for one day because that would be weird.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I think that a lot of so-called Stalinists march around with uncle Joe for the same reason that a lot of far-right folks will sieg heil or namedrop Hitler: it's kind of a form of extreme anti-apologism, as both Stalin and Hitler are mostly reviled figures in the Western world. I don't buy this "Stalin as a powerful symbol of revolutionary socialism" argument, because there are plenty of other much more enduring symbols of socialism out there.

[4 Leaf Clover]

you handful of foreign mercenaries

[Quail]

I don't get why the fact that that is the average British Stalinist is funny, or supposed to be funny, I know five of the people in that picture and they are just your regular people, they just look like anyone you could see in the street and think nothing of. I really don't understand the joke. The only thing that anyone could possibly find strange about that is they are carrying a portrait of Stalin, but they are Stalinists, what did you expect? A portrait of Tony Cliff?
I just find it kind of funny, because Stalin isn't exactly a great advertisement for socialism, so anyone who sees them is just going to think they're a bit mad and not take them seriously. It's also a little cultish.

[Lyev]

Actually, earlier this year on may day, me and some comrades were seen wondering around London with a massive portrait of Peter Taaffe. You can only march near us if you uphold the transitional programme tho.

[Pavlov's House Party]

I think that a lot of so-called Stalinists march around with uncle Joe for the same reason that a lot of far-right folks will sieg heil or namedrop Hitler: it's kind of a form of extreme anti-apologism, as both Stalin and Hitler are mostly reviled figures in the Western world. I don't buy this "Stalin as a powerful symbol of revolutionary socialism" argument, because there are plenty of other much more enduring symbols of socialism out there.

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

[Spawn of Stalin]

I think that a lot of so-called Stalinists march around with uncle Joe for the same reason that a lot of far-right folks will sieg heil or namedrop Hitler: it's kind of a form of extreme anti-apologism, as both Stalin and Hitler are mostly reviled figures in the Western world. I don't buy this "Stalin as a powerful symbol of revolutionary socialism" argument, because there are plenty of other much more enduring symbols of socialism out there.
Right, you don't buy it, but spare a thought for the millions who do? We uphold Stalin as the most powerful symbol of socialism there is, we are not in the minority. If people in countries with real socialist movement can march with portraits of people like Stalin or Mao or even someone like Castro the why can't we?

[Spawn of Stalin]

I just find it kind of funny, because Stalin isn't exactly a great advertisement for socialism, so anyone who sees them is just going to think they're a bit mad and not take them seriously. It's also a little cultish.
We see him as a great advertisement for socialism, we want to attract other people with the same viewpoints as us so that we can build a party. We are not in the business of rallying mass support for our Party just yet, we have only existed for five years so yes, people find it hard to take us seriously, and they find it hard to take anarchists seriously too, and Trotskyites, this isn't a problem with Stalinists it is a problem with left. Enough people are taking us seriously that we are growing at about the rate we would like to be, and that's good enough for us.

[Spawn of Stalin]

Actually, earlier this year on may day, me and some comrades were seen wondering around London with a massive portrait of Peter Taaffe. You can only march near us if you uphold the transitional programme tho.

Except we don't carry portraits of Harpal, we carry portraits of Stalin, someone who actually achieved something that lasted. Peter Taaffe's greatest achievement was getting himself booted out of the Labour Party.

[Pirate Utopian]

Right, you don't buy it, but spare a thought for the millions who do? We uphold Stalin as the most powerful symbol of socialism there is, we are not in the minority. If people in countries with real socialist movement can march with portraits of people like Stalin or Mao or even someone like Castro the why can't we?
Because it looks ridiculous?

[Amphictyonis]

I am Stalin.

[Thirsty Crow]

I don't get why the fact that that is the average British Stalinist is funny, or supposed to be funny, I know five of the people in that picture and they are just your regular people, they just look like anyone you could see in the street and think nothing of. I really don't understand the joke. The only thing that anyone could possibly find strange about that is they are carrying a portrait of Stalin, but they are Stalinists, what did you expect? A portrait of Tony Cliff?

Maybe I've expected a demonstration of working class action, not cultish behaviour.


We see him as a great advertisement for socialism
The only person who should be credited with (single-handedly, mind you) creating something that lasted...and then fell to pieces!
:laugh:

[Jazzratt]

Maybe I've expected a demonstration of working class action, not cultish behaviour. Well quite. You turn up largely with worker solidarity in mind and then a selection of crusty old weirdos turn up with a picture of the, several decades dead, former leader of a political entity that collapsed approximately a decade ago. That's probably why it's so bloody cringeworthy.

[Widerstand]

Well quite. You turn up largely with worker solidarity in mind and then a selection of crusty old weirdos turn up with a picture of the, several decades dead, former leader of a political entity that collapsed approximately a decade ago. That's probably why it's so bloody cringeworthy.

Well whose picture do YOU march with???? :lol:

[Tavarisch_Mike]

Fist of all there is no 'ism' called "Stalinism" but i know what you all mean :) and i will simply go with this...


There are several different sub-species of stalinists.

Ordinary Stalinist

The usual member of an official anti-revisionist party to some extent. Is usually male, though females could exist. Usually hold very hostile views against other parties, the closer ideologically the more hostile, due to competition over members and votes. Is generally well-versed in history and specifics. Ages 18-80, usually between 20 and 30.

Red Alert Stalinist/Stalin-kiddie

Predominantly male. Are most often unorganised, though they tend to form short-lived political parties through freeware website platforms or blogs through the internet. Do usually not know so much about history or ideology, but are glorifying the RED ARMY and the T-34 TANK. Have a tendency to write in big letters. Usual age range is 13-20.

Great Russian Stalinist

Stalinists from Russia and other former USSR countries. Predominantly male. Generally espouses a high degree of (biased) knowledge on history, coupled with little to none communist political conviction. Are liking Stalin because he was a great leader who industrialised the USSR, made "Mother Russia" a superpower and defeated the Nazis. In general this group are holding reactionary social convictions. Age range 15-80, though the supporters tend to consist of people who actually lived through Stalin's reign and people who have never experienced the USSR.

Tankie

Stalinists who support the intervention in Czechoslovakia and uphold the Soviet Union until Gorbachev.

Hoxhaist

Like number one, but with even more sectarianism. Predominantly male.

Maoist

Are generally glorifying Mao instead of Stalin, and focusing more on anti-racism and "new politics" than the typical stalinists. Predominantly male, though there is are comparatively more females active.

Maoist-Third Worldist

A modern variant of the flagellants. Generally consisting of students in western universities who are atoning for the sins of being born in a western country by verbally attacking western workers for having it somewhat better than workers in other countries. More studies required.

Jucheite

In western countries generally belonging to the same category as the second group. The same for westerners who worship such authorities Saddam, Idi Amin, Osama and Eric "Reb" Harris.

Miscellaneous

Whatever floats your boat

..eccept that on 'Great Russian Stalinists' i dont think that they are dominatly male rather the opposite if you look on a foto/video clip of the average pro-soviet manifestation frome the former USSR. Also since many of theese people are very old (and as menthioned some of them actually lived during the rule of Stalin himselfe) it tends to be logic that women would make up the majority since women tend to live longer.

[Spawn of Stalin]

Maybe I've expected a demonstration of working class action, not cultish behaviour.
Carrying a picture of someone is cultish? When south Africans marched with pictures of Mandela, was that cultish? And no, it doesn't matter that one is living while the other is dead. Nobody seems to have any valid criticisms, "it's cultish", so what? If it's cultish that means we will ultimately fail, right? And that's good for you guys, so quit complaining about it.

The only person who should be credited with (single-handedly, mind you) creating something that lasted...and then fell to pieces!
:laugh:
The Paris Commune fell to pieces, the resistance in Spain fell to pieces, a lot of things fell to pieces, it means nothing, especially considering the later years of the USSR have nothing to do with Stalin.

Like I said, join the Party, take a stand against it. If democratic centralism favours you then we can all kiss the Stalin portrait goodbye.

[Spawn of Stalin]

Well quite. You turn up largely with worker solidarity in mind and then a selection of crusty old weirdos turn up with a picture of the, several decades dead, former leader of a political entity that collapsed approximately a decade ago. That's probably why it's so bloody cringeworthy.

The rest of this post I can accept as valid criticism, albeit criticism that I do not believe to be particularly valid, we do turn up with worker solidarity in mind, we just do it in a different way to you. Anyway that isn't my point, my point is calling us a bunch of crusty old weirdos is just really fucking low but more importantly untrue, we have people in our Party who haven't even reached GCSE age yet, we have members who, to be blunt, will probably die soon, and we have working aged people. Really seriously low, especially from one of the more mature posters on revleft, I have come to expect better of you.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

..eccept that on 'Great Russian Stalinists' i dont think that they are dominatly male rather the opposite if you look on a foto/video clip of the average pro-soviet manifestation frome the former USSR. Also since many of theese people are very old (and as menthioned some of them actually lived during the rule of Stalin himselfe) it tends to be logic that women would make up the majority since women tend to live longer.
I know you're probably expecting me to argue with that ;) but you are actually (from the little experience I have) right to some extent. The one 'great russian stalinist' I know is an old lady from the former USSR who got really happy when she found out that I read some of Enver Hoxha's writings. She was really thrilled that I at that time had a picture of Enver.
Now, I also know that she is also anti-semetic and really homophobic.

[bailey_187]

why did u have a picture of Hoxha can i ask?

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Carrying a picture of someone is cultish? When south Africans marched with pictures of Mandela, was that cultish? And no, it doesn't matter that one is living while the other is dead. Nobody seems to have any valid criticisms, "it's cultish", so what? If it's cultish that means we will ultimately fail, right? And that's good for you guys, so quit complaining about it.
:laugh: You're silly. You make me giggle.

Don't take it as offense. You put a smile on my face and brightened my day.:)

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

why did u have a picture of Hoxha can i ask?
I was briefly involved with the Hoxhaists because my [now ex's] older brother dragged me into it.

[revolution inaction]

The Paris Commune fell to pieces, the resistance in Spain fell to pieces, a lot of things fell to pieces, it means nothing, especially considering the later years of the USSR have nothing to do with Stalin.


no, the paris commune was crushed with military force, and was the resistance in spain. the ussr disintegrated by its self.

[red cat]

no, the paris commune was crushed with military force, and was the resistance in spain. the ussr disintegrated by its self.

Military weakness of anarchist or orthodox Marxist methods is what calls for the formation of a vanguard party.

[Widerstand]

Military weakness of anarchist or orthodox Marxist methods is what calls for the formation of a vanguard party.

Yeah, the elite-warrior vanguard fears no force no matter how big and no matter how big their equipment :rolleyes:

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Yeah, the elite-warrior vanguard fears no force no matter how big and no matter how big their equipment :rolleyes:
I like their big equipment...:tt2:

[Widerstand]

I like their big equipment...:tt2:

Comrade don't we all :tt1:

[bricolage]

Military weakness of anarchist or orthodox Marxist methods is what calls for the formation of a vanguard party.
Ironically though in all of Marxs writings on the Paris Commune he doesn't once say that.
Not that I think Marx=truth, but still...

[Who?]

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lbrwoksBTF1qa5z1ro1_400.jpg

[bricolage]

anarchists only drink herbal tea...

[revolution inaction]

Military weakness of anarchist or orthodox Marxist methods is what calls for the formation of a vanguard party.

explain how anarchist methods are military weak, and why the solution would be a vangard party. and also how this statement is a response to what i wrote

[Raúl Duke]

Fuck you, dickhead, I work my nads off making minimum wage to pay for my shitty community college so that hopefully I can get the qualifications to write/teach further down the line, I don't got anybody pulling my weight for me.


Also, I think that these days most "third world girls with guns" are Maoists, just sayin. I'm not really sure what your insistence is that they're all girls is all about, though. I'm obviously not against women fighting/etc, but it's still reality that most fighting forces today are male-dominated.

Methinks you're projecting about what you'd like to be doing a tad bit, and venting that you're a first-world computer jockey that hates people going to school (for some inane reason, LOL).


I would imagine that your impression of anarchists is more based upon the social circles you move in than anarchism as it really is.:thumbup1:

rep +1

In my experience here,

The "Stalinists" are either some weirdo or a very "serious" person who "lives for politics" and can't chill the fuck out.

The "most normal" people here have been some trots (barely), some left-coms, certain M-Ls (Arizona Bay, Comrade Alasitair was pretty normal too I guess), and a handful of anarchists (usually from the UK). I don't ever re-call meeting a "stalinist" who I ever thought was a normal decent human being.

[red cat]

explain how anarchist methods are military weak,

Due to lack of a centralized structure.


and why the solution would be a vangard party.

Mainly because it would provide that structure.


and also how this statement is a response to what i wrote

I thought what you meant was that anarchist movements can be crushed only by military force.

[revolution inaction]

Due to lack of a centralized structure.

explain how this is a weakness

[Amphictyonis]

explain how this is a weakness

Because the fire was too intense

A0wHeekgPqk

Structural failure brought down the socialism? Sorry, I'm drunk.

[Spawn of Stalin]

no, the paris commune was crushed with military force, and was the resistance in spain. the ussr disintegrated by its self.
Yes, I am well aware that the Paris Commune didn't just disappear on its own, you must also know that this wasn't the case with the USSR also. There are external factors involved, with the Paris Commune it was the state, with the USSR it was Gorbachev, who made it his personal goal to destroy all remnants of socialism. The USSR didn't fall, it was pushed.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I don't think that Gorbachev was an external factor. On the contrary, I think that he was an internal factor...he (and Yeltsin, for that matter) was at one point a Party functionary, after all.

I wouldn't say that it's entirely the USSR's fault that it sank into geopolitical oblivion, but I definitely think that it was in large part responsible for it's own demise...after all, the system in the USSR made it possible for Gorbachev's to rise within the ranks and achieve state power! It's not like Gorbachev marched into Moscow with a foreign capitalist army or anything.

[Spawn of Stalin]

Poor choice of words on my part, they certainly represented external interests. Regardless, the point is that the USSR didn't just curl up into a ball and die peacefully, it was forcefully brought down. Everybody knows that though.

[revolution inaction]

Yes, I am well aware that the Paris Commune didn't just disappear on its own, you must also know that this wasn't the case with the USSR also. There are external factors involved, with the Paris Commune it was the state, with the USSR it was Gorbachev, who made it his personal goal to destroy all remnants of socialism. The USSR didn't fall, it was pushed.

The ussr was destroyed because of a structural fault, the paris commune was destroyed by overwelming military force, this is fundamentally different.

[red cat]

explain how this is a weakness

An army that is not centralized cannot act has a well-coordinated body against enemy offensives.

[revolution inaction]

An army that is not centralized cannot act has a well-coordinated body against enemy offensives.

why not?

[Kléber]

Poor choice of words on my part, they certainly represented external interests. Regardless, the point is that the USSR didn't just curl up into a ball and die peacefully, it was forcefully brought down. Everybody knows that though.
No, everybody doesn't know that because it's bullshit. You seem to be under some fantastic illusion that Khrushchev and all the Kremlin leaders after him were CIA agents, capitalist billionaires or both. They were really just position-seeking bureaucrats who enriched themselves at the expense of the people. Economic inequality in the Soviet Union took off under Stalin in the 1930's, not because of some stupid speech in the 1950's.

What really happened in 1991 is the Soviet bureaucracy capitulated to imperialism without a fight. A few Stalinists who hadn't gotten the memo tried to stop their friends with a military coup, but it was almost too pathetic to mention. There was mass Russian working-class resistance to privatizations, but that only started after the USSR had been dissolved because up until 1991 the Party elite had done everything to gag worker resistance to their right-wing agenda, while the "reformist" demagogues directed popular anger against the vestiges of the 1917 revolution.

[Kléber]

why not?
I think the answer's obvious. In a modern war, a division of ten thousand soldiers can be surrounded and blown to pieces in the time it would take to democratically discuss and vote on how the army should respond to an enemy attack.

Red cat is making a strawman, though, because anarchists have always had centralized military commands, they have even persecuted and shot their own political opponents, whether in Ukraine, Korea or Spain (until they submitted to the Popular Front). That of course raises the question of whether anarchist-controlled "liberated zones" are states whether or not they admit it, but that's another debate, and not one I want to be on the same side as the Stalin kiddies for.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

An army that is not centralized cannot act has a well-coordinated body against enemy offensives.
:lol: You make me giggle you silly goose.

[revolution inaction]

I think the answer's obvious. In a modern war, a division of ten thousand soldiers can be surrounded and blown to pieces in the time it would take to democratically discuss and vote on how the army should respond to an enemy attack.

who is advocating this?




Red cat is making a strawman, though, because anarchists have always had centralized military commands, they have even persecuted and shot their own political opponents, whether in Ukraine, Korea or Spain (until they submitted to the Popular Front). That of course raises the question of whether anarchist-controlled "liberated zones" are states whether or not they admit it, but that's another debate, and not one I want to be on the same side as the Stalin kiddies for.
I don't think coordination is the same as centralisation, but if it turns out that we need a commander then so long as they are elected, have a strict mandate and can be recalled as close to instantly as possible then that doesn't conflict with anarchism in any way.

[red cat]

Red cat is making a strawman, though, because anarchists have always had centralized military commands, they have even persecuted and shot their own political opponents, whether in Ukraine, Korea or Spain (until they submitted to the Popular Front). That of course raises the question of whether anarchist-controlled "liberated zones" are states whether or not they admit it, but that's another debate, and not one I want to be on the same side as the Stalin kiddies for.

I was not aware of this. I think that any kind of centralization goes against the principles of anarchism. Plus the conditions of war might make it impossible for committees at different levels to meet for a long time. It is also possible that in certain particular zones military confrontations with the enemy rise so steeply within a very short period, that experts have to be selected and placed from outside by the higher committees rather than being elected by the local cadres. No anarchist here would probably agree to such a system.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

Your average British stalinist:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2458/3950718495_e100fbcc5c.jpg

Making sure nobody will want to talk to them.

I love this picture so much.

[The Ben G]

They seem to be in their twenties and into anime.

As opposed to us Trotskyites that tend to be into Extreme Metal and Punk Rock.

[revolution inaction]

I was not aware of this. I think that any kind of centralization goes against the principles of anarchism.

it depends what is meant by centralisation, some people us it to mean coordinated or synchronised, this doesn't not conflict with anarchism.



Plus the conditions of war might make it impossible for committees at different levels to meet for a long time.

i am not sure what you mean by committies here




It is also possible that in certain particular zones military confrontations with the enemy rise so steeply within a very short period,

i don't see how this could lead to this



that experts have to be selected and placed from outside by the higher committees rather than being elected by the local cadres. No anarchist here would probably agree to such a system.
rather it sounds like a shit excuse

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

As opposed to us Trotskyites that tend to be into Extreme Metal and Punk Rock.
Hey, us Anarchists like that stuff too!

[Spawn of Stalin]

The ussr was destroyed because of a structural fault, the paris commune was destroyed by overwelming military force, this is fundamentally different.

No, the USSR was brought down forcefully, if you really feel like denying that then be my guest, but you have some reading to do because even your average capitalist know that it didn't just die because it "didn't work".

[Spawn of Stalin]

No, everybody doesn't know that because it's bullshit. You seem to be under some fantastic illusion that Khrushchev and all the Kremlin leaders after him were CIA agents, capitalist billionaires or both. They were really just position-seeking bureaucrats who enriched themselves at the expense of the people. Economic inequality in the Soviet Union took off under Stalin in the 1930's, not because of some stupid speech in the 1950'sWhat a silly argument, I didn't even mention Khrushchev, let alone blame him (I think he is partly to blame, but we all know who the real traitors were, it has NOTHING to do with the "destalinisation"). But anyway, in your second paragraph you concede that Gorbachev et al had right wing agendas, and that they gave into pressure without resistance, in other words, the USSR was brought down on purpose, which is the polar opposite of just fading away quietly and naturally. So what I said wasn't bullshit at all was it? Because you just backed me up.

[Spawn of Stalin]

not one I want to be on the same side as the Stalin kiddies for.Or maybe I overestimated your ability to act like a rational, mature human being? Maybe it is the case that you'll always just argue against the Stalinists even when you agree with the Stalinists. Please, don't try to distance yourself from us when it isn't necessary, if we have a similar opinion on something, admit it, don't shy away from making a point based on the fact that you'll be on the same side as the Stalinists, because that is really pathetic and basically show how serious you are about what you believe. And please, why must we refer to everyone who favours Stalin as "Stalin kiddies"? I thought we were all crusty old weirdos? Now it seems we all children? ~revleft logic~

[Kléber]

What a silly argument, I didn't even mention Khrushchev, let alone blame him (I think he is partly to blame, but we all know who the real traitors were, it has NOTHING to do with the "destalinisation").
Okay, well I guess we agree there. The real traitors were Stalin and his toadies.


No, the USSR was brought down forcefully, if you really feel like denying that then be my guest, but you have some reading to do because even your average capitalist know that it didn't just die because it "didn't work". "Brought down forcefully" implies an imperialist invasion. The USSR was not brought down forcefully like the French Empire at Waterloo, nor was Gorbachev a CIA agent who set a nuke to explode in the Kremlin and flew away in a jetpack. It did not "collapse" either. The corrupt, unaccountable Stalinist bureaucracy capitulated to imperialism in spite of their claim that only an imperialist invasion could restore the reactionary capitalist system, in spite of all their military hardware, so fuck you and the tank you rode in on.


Please, don't try to distance yourself from us when it isn't necessary, if we have a similar opinion on something, admit it, don't shy away from making a point based on the fact that you'll be on the same side as the StalinistsNo, we don't have the same position. We may agree that anarchists have an idealistic conception of a democratic army with battlefield elections, but they are correct that a revolutionary army must be as democratic and egalitarian as circumstances permit. Stalin's regime went to the other, rightist extreme, and used military regularization as an excuse for restoring bourgeois ranks, saluting, officers' privileges, and huge salaries for generals and marshals of the Soviet army. In the Spanish Civil War, the rhetoric of military centralization was used by the Stalinists as a cover for their mini civil war against left-wing elements within the Republican camp, which shattered the morale of the anti-fascist vanguard, whose leaders were tortured and murdered in secret NKVD prisons.

[Spawn of Stalin]

You really are an idiot aren't you? I said similar opinion, not same position. They are quite different. Look, you said it yourself! I even quoted you! You said you didn't want to go into a specific subject based solely on the fact that you were fearful that you might end up on the same side as the Stalinists. If that isn't the height of immaturity, I don't know what is!

Who the hell does this joker think he is? Seriously mate, you are having a laugh.

Thread sucks I'm getting out of here.:tt2:

[Widerstand]

I was not aware of this. I think that any kind of centralization goes against the principles of anarchism. Plus the conditions of war might make it impossible for committees at different levels to meet for a long time. It is also possible that in certain particular zones military confrontations with the enemy rise so steeply within a very short period, that experts have to be selected and placed from outside by the higher committees rather than being elected by the local cadres. No anarchist here would probably agree to such a system.

Did Durutti and the CNT-FAI in Spain not represent a centralized coordination structure, telling Militias were to go and what not?

Aside from that, the Militias were largely autonomous AFAIK, even though that may have changed throughout the revolution.

The point however is that is a centralized structure isn't necessary, nor are large councils or committees. What you do need is a number of autonomous acting militias (in small enough size to be able to make decisions quickly) and an information system that allows for them to communicate and coordinate with each other (this should be fairly easy with current technology, in Spain it required a centralized entity), as well as some sort of arms supply (this, again, can be done without centralization with modern communication).

Centralization is largely irrelevant with technology available that allows for a multiplicity of cells to communicate with each other.

[Zanthorus]

What you do need is a number of autonomous acting militias

This is basically what the Bolsheviks tried during the early phases of the Russian Civil War against the early cossack rebellions in the Orenburg, Don, Kuban and Terek regions during the December 1917 - January 1918 period. They sent armed detachments of revolutionary workers' and soldiers' in via train to crush the rebellions. It worked fairly well, until they came up against the Imperial German army during the eleven days war, and got absolutely hammered. You're simply out of your mind if you think small militia detachments can match up to a modern army. The RSFSR would've probably collapsed during late 1918/early 1919 in the fight against Denikin and Kolchack without the professionalised Red Army (In fact, with the latter on their side, it might have been feasible not to sign Brest-Litovsk, or at least wrangle out better terms of agreement).


Centralization is largely irrelevant with technology available that allows for a multiplicity of cells to communicate with each other.

It's not about communication, it's about military tactics. Specifically, you cannot have an army where every single soldier is a skilled military tactician. You are going to have certain people with this kind of knowledge doing the ordering and certain others without the knowledge doing the leading. Allowing soldiers on the ground to disobey orders from people with knowledge of military manuevers, to disobey orders that are part of a co-ordinate plan of attack, is madness.

[The Douche]

I'll be honest on this military issue, as somebody who has served in a combat unit in the army, and knows a little (really just a little) ammount about company tactics, I am not totally convinced that anarchist principles can be applied, 100%, w/o compromise to military situations.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I think that if a future social revolution happens and is purely determined by military conflict and force of arms, then any nascent communist insurgents are pretty much screwed, no matter how well-organized they are.

Luckily I don't view "teh revolution" as being solely defined by epic tank battles and the glorious neo-Red Army re-creating the Winter Palace storming for a new millenium, much as some posters may fantasize about that.

[Magón]

I think that if a future social revolution happens and is purely determined by military conflict and force of arms, then any nascent communist insurgents are pretty much screwed, no matter how well-organized they are.

Luckily I don't view "teh revolution" as being solely defined by epic tank battles and the glorious neo-Red Army re-creating the Winter Palace storming for a new millenium, much as some posters may fantasize about that.

Nin thanks this post (twice.)

[Kléber]

I think that if a future social revolution happens and is purely determined by military conflict and force of arms, then any nascent communist insurgents are pretty much screwed, no matter how well-organized they are.
Not if revolutionaries are able to capture industries and weapons from the bourgeoisie by winning over the workers who operate them, which is what happened in Russia, where a tiny proletariat defeated 14 imperialist armies and the White monarchists in spite of the isolation, backwardness, and eventual failure of the revolution. There is a point where class struggles assume the character of conventional warfare and if we can't beat the capitalists or at least intimidate them into surrender then a revolution is impossible.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

This is basically what the Bolsheviks tried during the early phases of the Russian Civil War against the early cossack rebellions in the Orenburg, Don, Kuban and Terek regions during the December 1917 - January 1918 period. They sent armed detachments of revolutionary workers' and soldiers' in via train to crush the rebellions. It worked fairly well, until they came up against the Imperial German army during the eleven days war, and got absolutely hammered. You're simply out of your mind if you think small militia detachments can match up to a modern army. The RSFSR would've probably collapsed during late 1918/early 1919 in the fight against Denikin and Kolchack without the professionalised Red Army (In fact, with the latter on their side, it might have been feasible not to sign Brest-Litovsk, or at least wrangle out better terms of agreement).



It's not about communication, it's about military tactics. Specifically, you cannot have an army where every single soldier is a skilled military tactician. You are going to have certain people with this kind of knowledge doing the ordering and certain others without the knowledge doing the leading. Allowing soldiers on the ground to disobey orders from people with knowledge of military manuevers, to disobey orders that are part of a co-ordinate plan of attack, is madness.

To some degree. However, since the communist army will presumably all be committed revolutionaries, it would seem unlikely that they would disobey orders/ elect incompetent officers, not listen to those who are known to be good tacticians, since it is their lives on the line. This is opposed to the bourgeious military system, which has a long history of being incompetent as well as brilliant. I think you stretch anarchist principles in the wrong direction when you suggest that anarchists would allow people to desert/disobey prearranged plans, having previously agreed to serve the the revolutionary military for a fixed term, in such a way that would endanger their comrades, or the defense of the revolution - most would find that as coercive for the same reasons they would any ordinary deception.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Not if revolutionaries are able to capture industries and weapons from the bourgeoisie by winning over the workers who operate them, which is what happened in Russia, where a tiny proletariat defeated 14 imperialist armies and the White monarchists in spite of the isolation, backwardness, and eventual failure of the revolution. There is a point where class struggles assume the character of conventional warfare and if we can't beat the capitalists or at least intimidate them into surrender then a revolution is impossible.

I've given this subject some thought. The "Russian experience" took place in a world in which the airplane was only just beginning to fly, computers didn't exist and the things that transported many soldiers across territories were fed grain instead of diesel. That's not to say that many of the same social trends vis-a-vis workers/military aren't the same, and in many ways that counts more than whatever superficial developments regarding technology have transpired, but when you read articles in Popular Mechanics about how the Department of Defense is funding developement for rapid-deploy aircraft that can put divisions of Marines anywhere in the world in 30 minutes or less, you get a real sense of futility regarding any kind of communist insurgency lasting longer than a few days once the powers that be catch wind of them. (Assuming that the bourgeoisie really play hardball to the level that some users on here claim, namely Psy. I personally think that the U.S. government would be a little more hestitant to start carpet-bombing their own cities than he does, but whatev.) The real power of "the revolution" is "social contagion", which of course effects every level of society including the armed forces. Some users on here have a really bad habit of characterizing the success or failure of their desired communist society as being defined by how many guns communist forces have vs. how many guns anti-communist forces have ("power comes from the barrel of a gun" and so forth) and I think that's a really wrongheaded way to view things. It may be accurate in regards to political (a.k.a. superficial) revolution, but certainly not social revolution.

That's not to say that I'm a pacifist, though, because I'm not. I don't think that any revolution is peaceful, but I don't think that violence is the centerpiece, either. It's unfortunate that the main lesson so many people take from the Soviet state circa-1917 is how many armies of assorted counter-revolutionaries and prospective debt collectors they beat back.

End rant. This thread has gotten disturbingly serious.

[Martin Blank]

^^^^^ I'll take care of that....


Me and my girl have sex under a picture of Stalin. No word of a lie.

Now you know why Stalin smiles ... and why you can't see both of his hands. :D

[Martin Blank]

Well whose picture do YOU march with???? :lol:

Mine, but I keep it in my wallet.

[Kléber]

I've given this subject some thought. The "Russian experience" took place in a world in which the airplane was only just beginning to fly, computers didn't exist and the things that transported many soldiers across territories were fed grain instead of diesel. That's not to say that many of the same social trends vis-a-vis workers/military aren't the same, and in many ways that counts more than whatever superficial developments regarding technology have transpired, but when you read articles in Popular Mechanics about how the Department of Defense is funding developement for rapid-deploy aircraft that can put divisions of Marines anywhere in the world in 30 minutes or less, you get a real sense of futility regarding any kind of communist insurgency lasting longer than a few days once the powers that be catch wind of them.
Well, what kind of insurgency are we talking about here? Adventurist risings of a few hundred to a few thousand militants have been a hopeless tactic since long before 1917. Military adventurism was very popular among communists in the late Nineteenth Century; anarchists organized many such uprisings in France, Italy, Spain and Russia, all of which were quickly surrounded and defeated by bourgeois armies. More recently, many nationalist insurgencies in the colonial world have gone from humble origins to state power and even defeated imperialist interventions, but that is generally only possible if the previous government is in chaos and/or the rebels receive foreign military aid.

The Paris Commune and the October Revolution were not such isolated uprisings of a few thousand radicals, they were mass democratic seizures of power by the class-conscious proletariat. In Paris, the workers of an entire city formed a proletarian assembly along with the rank-and-file soldiers. In Russia the soviets represented millions of workers, soldiers and poor peasants, they had been set up by all parties and they took power across most of European Russia with very little bloodshed over a couple months in late 1917 under the leadership of Bolsheviks, Left SR's and anarchists working together.

The imperialists who were defeated by the Red Army did have better small arms, artillery, and logistics, many times more aircraft and ships, and they had tanks. The intervention forces and the White units, which were formed out of remnants of the Tsarist army, were well-organized from the start whereas the Red forces had to turn themselves from a 200,000-strong volunteer militia to a millions-strong modern army while besieged and invaded from all directions. Military technology has been improving for a long time, and the oppressors have always had a huge military advantage over the oppressed going back to the first slave empires. Yet from chariots to stealth fighters, no weapon has been unstoppable. Imagine how all the revolutionary struggles of the past would have gone if everyone was afraid of the better weapons and organization of the ruling classes. Lincoln would have let the Confederacy secede as France and Britain threatened to intervene. Durruti would have stayed at home when he heard Italian and German troops were coming to Spain. Today, the invincibility of Western arms is largely an illusion manufactured by bourgeois propaganda, which can not explain its failure to stomp out relatively primitive insurgencies around the world. Besides, all of these super-weapons are operated and maintained by workers in uniform who can and must be won over to the revolution.


(Assuming that the bourgeoisie really play hardball to the level that some users on here claim, namely Psy. I personally think that the U.S. government would be a little more hestitant to start carpet-bombing their own cities than he does, but whatev.)Yes, the Russian proletariat was victorious because the soldiers, even the Cossacks, refused to follow Kornilov's orders and slaughter the revolutionary workers of Petrograd. Plenty of bourgeois leaders have historically been ready to murder millions of people in defense of their own interests, but that is dependent upon the will of their soldiers to fight.


The real power of "the revolution" is "social contagion", which of course effects every level of society including the armed forces. Some users on here have a really bad habit of characterizing the success or failure of their desired communist society as being defined by how many guns communist forces have vs. how many guns anti-communist forces have ("power comes from the barrel of a gun" and so forth) and I think that's a really wrongheaded way to view things. It may be accurate in regards to political (a.k.a. superficial) revolution, but certainly not social revolution.I agree that the power of the revolution flows from the internal contradictions of capitalism. Stalinists are mistaken in thinking that you can cut a country off from the world and build communism there as long as the army and secret police keep out class enemies. But Mao is basically correct that a revolution can conquer political power only insofar as it exploits social contradictions to overpower the oppressing classes. The revolution has to spread and it has to defend itself.


That's not to say that I'm a pacifist, though, because I'm not. I don't think that any revolution is peaceful, but I don't think that violence is the centerpiece, either. It's unfortunate that the main lesson so many people take from the Soviet state circa-1917 is how many armies of assorted counter-revolutionaries and prospective debt collectors they beat back.I say let the debt collectors come. I'll be waiting on the front porch with a shotgun across my lap. ;p

The Soviet experiment definitely offers more examples of failures and mistakes to be avoided than successes to be followed, but the most glorious achievement of 1917 was that the Russian workers, soldiers and farmers showed the way out of the slaughter of WWI: turn the guns against the governments, turn the reactionary imperialist war into revolutionary class war. We have to think even bigger in a world on the verge of utter devastation by capitalism and a new dark age brought on by imperialist war and/or environmental devastation.

[Wanted Man]

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

Actually pretty amazing that this is being used on Revleft.

[Sarah Palin]

stalinists are the hot pockets of the pizza type foods that are leftism: the last resort

[the last donut of the night]

this thread:

http://ts2.mm.bing.net/images/thumbnail.aspx?q=409202330829&id=454a79916c5b790bc456fd45bada2cde

[Honggweilo]

What if you are in your 20s and only mildly appreciate anime every few weeks or so?

revisionism :rolleyes:?