Why do Stalinists have so much rep?

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

Seriously, they all have awesome rep/post ratios despite, not wanting to sugar coat things here, most of their posts being really, really shit.

What is with this? Is there some kind of 15 year old stalinoid maoist conspiracy where they've all agreed to rep every single post they all make?!

[Sir Comradical]

Seriously, they all have awesome rep/post ratios despite, not wanting to sugar coat things here, most of their posts being really, really shit.

What is with this? Is there some kind of 15 year old stalinoid maoist conspiracy where they've all agreed to rep every single post they all make?!

Basically, yes.

[Il Medico]

Stalinist tend to thank even the most basic Stalinist line. Basically, who ever says it first gets tons of rep. It is similar with anarchist on here, which are the two biggest cliques.

[NoOneIsIllegal]

It's all part of the Anarcho-Trot conspiracy.

[BIG BROTHER]

Maybe because their whole revolutionary activity is limited to Revleft?

[bcbm]

they ain't got shit

[ZeroNowhere]

So is this supposed to be a circle jerk involving condemnation of Stalinists for circle jerks?

[scarletghoul]

Tbh we are just better than you.

[bcbm]

not than me

[BIG BROTHER]

So is this supposed to be a circle jerk involving condemnation of Stalinists for circle jerks?

fudge yea!

[Sasha]

So is this supposed to be a circle jerk involving condemnation of Stalinists for circle jerks?

Yup, now if only we could rep in this thread...

[bcbm]

quick move it to, um... diy?

[synthesis]

quick move it to, um... diy?

Discrimination FTW

[bcbm]

i was thinking somewhere out of the way where we can circlejerk in peace

[Rusty Shackleford]

whatever happened to the RAAN threads?

[DDR]

OMG, the evil stalinist getting rep points, oh noez!!!!!!!!!!!1111oneoneone!!!eleveneleven!!!

Yo seriously need a thread for this?

[Who?]

Maybe because their whole revolutionary activity is limited to Revleft?

lol

[Jazzratt]

because where others tend to think for themselves and thank posts they agree with, M-Ls simply regurgitate party doctrine and thank posts where others do the same, it's a constant circlejerk.

To be fair I don't know that we'd lose content much from having only one Stalinoid member at a time.

[An archist]

Wasn't there an anarchist rep conspiracy some time ago?

[Lord Testicles]

Sometimes stalinists say things that other people agree with...

[The Douche]

whatever happened to the RAAN threads?

All RAANistas except me were banned.

I miss those threads, RAAN rep circle jerks.

[Spawn of Stalin]

The good rep Stalinists get on the internet simply reflects the good rep Stalinists get in the real world.

Ruthless motherfuckers who just tell it like it is I guess.

[gorillafuck]

Ruthless motherfuckers who just tell it like it is I guess.
Except that Stalinist views of history basically get completely demolished and torn to shreds by certain people in history threads.

For the actual topic, this isn't exclusive to Stalinists. Tendencies agree on certain things so they thank eachother. Whatever.

[Rusty Shackleford]

All RAANistas except me were banned.

I miss those threads, RAAN rep circle jerks.


apparently my criticism of the fuck lenin picture of the police commander killing a communist (the communist having lenins head super imposed on the famous vietnam war photo) was an outrage worth of a thread split.

they were pretty funny though.

[Blackscare]

The rep system was never good, it was always used for circle-jerks. The problem is the "thank you" button.

But yes, the Stalinoids are more guilty of mindless thank you circle-jerking than anyone else, presently. It used to be the Anarchists (and they still put up a good showing). Trots never really had the numbers and probably started a Left Rep-Opposition group at some point. Maoists are getting pretty annoying.

Fuck it, I hate all you commie scum. Sign me up for the Mises forums.

[TC]

I don't get the "stalin kiddie" cliche since it seems like the age and maturity of alleged stalinists is about the same as any other group...I can think of that is younger, geekier, and less mature on average, but I'll keep it to myself :p

I'm not even clear what counts as "stalinist" these days...is it only anti-revisionists who uphold everything stalin ever did or said, any anti-revisionist, anyone who upholds anything stalin did (stopping hitler may for example have been a good idea :p)...

...or is it anyone who supports any existing or existent socialist state or socialist state leader apart from the USSR while Trotsky was in government and Trotsky.

[black magick hustla]

...or is it anyone who supports any existing or existent socialist state or socialist state leader apart from the USSR while Trotsky was in government and Trotsky.

tankies

[Tablo]

apparently my criticism of the fuck lenin picture of the police commander killing a communist (the communist having lenins head super imposed on the famous vietnam war photo) was an outrage worth of a thread split.

they were pretty funny though.
I loved that thread! :lol:

[TC]

tankies


Right, but calling tankies stalinists seems as moronic as calling trotskyists stalinists since anti-revisionists denounce tankies as paradigmatic revisionists (when they speak of anti-revisionism, the tankies are the revisionists they mean! and surely anti-revisionists are the true Stalinists) and tankies suppressed Stalin's faction and people supporting it abroad.

And of course, most people who support some socialist states are not necessarily "tankies" - its really a term of abuse everywhere but here (I think I may have actually been the one who reclaimed and popularized "tankie" as a positive term on revleft several years back)

[Magón]

The rep system was never good, it was always used for circle-jerks. The problem is the "thank you" button.

But yes, the Stalinoids are more guilty of mindless thank you circle-jerking than anyone else, presently. It used to be the Anarchists (and they still put up a good showing). Trots never really had the numbers and probably started a Left Rep-Opposition group at some point. Maoists are getting pretty annoying.

Fuck it, I hate all you commie scum. Sign me up for the Mises forums.

Reading this, and then looking at your avatar made me LOL.

[black magick hustla]

Right, but calling tankies stalinists seems as moronic as calling trotskyists stalinists since anti-revisionists denounce tankies as paradigmatic revisionists (when they speak of anti-revisionism, the tankies are the revisionists they mean! and surely anti-revisionists are the true Stalinists) and tankies suppressed Stalin's faction and people supporting it abroad.

And of course, most people who support some socialist states are not necessarily "tankies" - its really a term of abuse everywhere but here (I think I may have actually been the one who reclaimed and popularized "tankie" as a positive term on revleft several years back)
my comment was tongue in cheek, but in certain traditions stalinism has a very specific definition. it is not just a slur and there are specific historical reasons why a group my call another group stalinist. in the case of the communist left it has to do with third period comintern politics, the russification of the communist parties, popular front policies, "socialism in one country", national liberation, etcetera. it has actually very little to do with "authoritarianism". rather, after certain point in theory there was a counterrevolution.

[Kléber]

Right, but calling tankies stalinists seems as moronic as calling trotskyists stalinists since anti-revisionists denounce tankies as paradigmatic revisionists (when they speak of anti-revisionism, the tankies are the revisionists they mean! and surely anti-revisionists are the true Stalinists) and tankies suppressed Stalin's faction and people supporting it abroad.
Actually, "orthodox" Stalinists (Maoists/Hoxhaists) support the Soviet deployment in Hungary in 1956; that is, the literal origin of the term tankie - "sending in the tanks." It's just about the only thing that they like about Khrushchev.

Like maldoror said, Stalin's successors were Stalinists in that they continued Stalin's policies. They officially said the repressions were a mistake, something they had the liberty to do since Uncle Joe had done them the favor of wiping out all dissent. If apologizing for purges is revisionism, then Stalin himself was anti-Stalinist for saying that innocent people had been executed under Yezhov.

[Widerstand]

whatever happened to the RAAN threads?

They weren't of use to the Anarcho-Trotcratic ruling caste anymore, so they got forbidden.



To be fair I don't know that we'd lose content much from having only one Stalinoid member at a time.

Is that why you restricted Palin?:mad:


Wasn't there an anarchist rep conspiracy some time ago?

No. There was never a plan to build a wall.


All RAANistas except me were banned.

I miss those threads, RAAN rep circle jerks.

RAAN rep circle jerks were the best thing on RevLeft, seriously.

[Nolan]

I don't think we have any more rep than anyone else. I want to see a chart.

[Bright Banana Beard]

It's showing that the great purge should have kept going, even if Stalin get purged. Stalin does not matter to me in a sense of communist movement, but Trotsky is even worse.

[Nolan]

It's showing that the great purge should have kept going, even if Stalin get purged. Stalin does not matter to me in a sense of communist movement, but Trotsky is even worse.

You say the strangest things sometimes.

[Tablo]

I'm not surprised by Stalinists getting a ton of rep, just the particular ones that are getting all the rep despite their awful politics. *cough* TVM *cough* (still love you though!)

[scarletghoul]

I don't think we have any more rep than anyone else. I want to see a chart.
http://www.revleft.com/vb/memberlist.php?order=DESC&sort=reputation&pp=30

[Wanted Man]

(I think I may have actually been the one who reclaimed and popularized "tankie" as a positive term on revleft several years back)

I can imagine that.

http://www.bigscalemodels.com/tanks/t34-85/t34_1943_tank.jpg

Look how badass that is. Let's send them in.


http://www.revleft.com/vb/memberlist.php?order=DESC&sort=reputation&pp=30

I think I'm going to make it my life mission to get into the top 10. My main priority in life is the opinion that people on the internet have about me.

What would be interesting though is to make a rep-to-post ratio. That would probably make Saorsa or scarletghoul king of Revleft, an interesting prospect no doubt.

[Triple A]

People are afraid of being sent to kulaks if they dont rep stalinists.:(

[A.J.]

Actually, "orthodox" Stalinists (Maoists/Hoxhaists) support the Soviet deployment in Hungary in 1956; that is, the literal origin of the term tankie - "sending in the tanks." It's just about the only thing that they like about Khrushchev.

You're wrong. The term "tankie" was originally coined by 'eurocommunists' within the now defunct Communist Party of Great Britain in 1968 following the Soviet intervention in Czechoslovakia. It was aimed specifically at fellow party members belonging to the pro-Soviet wing of the CPGB who supported the application of the Brezhnev Doctrine.

[TC]

You're wrong. The term "tankie" was originally coined by 'eurocommunists' within the now defunct Communist Party of Great Britain in 1968 following the Soviet intervention in Czechoslovakia. It was aimed specifically at fellow party members belonging to the pro-Soviet wing of the CPGB who supported the application of the Brezhnev Doctrine.




It originated in the CPGB yes but it seems like it was/is used for a pro-warsaw pact line in 1956 not just 1968. Maybe they just revived it in 1968 or it has come into usage retrospectively to describe pro-warsaw pact line prior to 1968, but in any case it seems to. So it did refer to Khruschev supporters not specifically Brezhnev supporters in the original usage.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=tankie

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

On the other hand its also possible to find sources that deal exclusively with pro-warsaw-pact lines in 1968, but its not obvious if this is because it is the original use or just the use they're familiar with.

The OED online defines it as a slang name for communists supporting hardline soviet policies especially intervention, and lists the first published mention in 1985.

[Sentinel]

People are afraid of being sent to kulaks if they dont rep stalinists.I think you meant gulags. Kulaks were independent, wealthy peasants in Soviet Russia. They were sent to the gulags, though (or labour 'settlements' administrated by the gulags to be more precise) by Comrade Joe.

[Robocommie]

This whole entire forum is firmly under the iron thumb of the Neo-Anarcho-Stalino-Luxembourgists.

[ed miliband]

You're wrong. The term "tankie" was originally coined by 'eurocommunists' within the now defunct Communist Party of Great Britain in 1968 following the Soviet intervention in Czechoslovakia. It was aimed specifically at fellow party members belonging to the pro-Soviet wing of the CPGB who supported the application of the Brezhnev Doctrine.

I swear 'Eurocommunists' didn't exist until the mid-70s at least.

[Kléber]

Oh yeah, I forgot that ortho-Stalinists only support the Soviet intervention in Hungary 1956 but oppose it in Czechoslovakia 1968, because that was after the Sino-Soviet split so Mao denounced it. :rolleyes:

[TC]

my comment was tongue in cheek, but in certain traditions stalinism has a very specific definition. it is not just a slur and there are specific historical reasons why a group my call another group stalinist. in the case of the communist left it has to do with third period comintern politics, the russification of the communist parties, popular front policies, "socialism in one country", national liberation, etcetera. it has actually very little to do with "authoritarianism". rather, after certain point in theory there was a counterrevolution.

Yes they may have a specific definition of "stalinist" (though the one you offered doesn't even apply to most people who reject Stalin but endorse non-trotsky-led socialist states, so trotskyists misapply their own label) but the application of "stalinist" to stalin's opponents remains a slur.

It would be like if anarchists decided to adopt a "very specific definition" of the word "hitlerite" that had to do with endorsing the use of a state and army to expropriate property, wage war and suppress political threats, thus by that definition of hitlerite, both Nazis and Trotskyists are "Hitlerites."

Sure it would have a specific definition, that wouldn't magically mean that the definition was an apt one or that it wasn't a slur.

[Devrim]

You're wrong. The term "tankie" was originally coined by 'eurocommunists' within the now defunct Communist Party of Great Britain in 1968 following the Soviet intervention in Czechoslovakia. It was aimed specifically at fellow party members belonging to the pro-Soviet wing of the CPGB who supported the application of the Brezhnev Doctrine.

You are wrong here. The term is older, and didn't come from the Euros. It was first used after the Hungarian uprising in 1956, long before the Euros were spawned.

Devrim

[black magick hustla]

Yes they may have a specific definition of "stalinist" (though the one you offered doesn't even apply to most people who reject Stalin but endorse non-trotsky-led socialist states, so trotskyists misapply their own label) but the application of "stalinist" to stalin's opponents remains a slur.

of course it sounds like a slur, but it is not an empty slur and there are sorts of theoretical essays describing what being a "stalinist" is. and yes, "tankies" are stalinists by virtue of the fact that todays' socialist states follow the politics of the final congresses of the comintern. anyway, "support" in my opinion is a silly word. in fact, it was at the final congresses were the whole idea of a "socialist state" as we envision today was engineered. (in my opinion there is no such thing as a "socialist state" but that is another discussion).




It would be like if anarchists decided to adopt a "very specific definition" of the word "hitlerite" that had to do with endorsing the use of a state and army to expropriate property, wage war and suppress political threats, thus by that definition of hitlerite, both Nazis and Trotskyists are "Hitlerites."

Sure it would have a specific definition, that wouldn't magically mean that the definition was an apt one or that it wasn't a slur.

of course the analogy is not correct. "stalinism" as we see it has a sort of historical continuity. of course the trotskyists have no historical link to "hitler". "stalinism" was a term used by those people who suffered through the counterrevolution and the second world war, so it is not just a fluke term.

[TC]

of course the analogy is not correct. "stalinism" as we see it has a sort of historical continuity. of course the trotskyists have no historical link to "hitler". "stalinism" was a term used by those people who suffered through the counterrevolution and the second world war, so it is not just a fluke term.

There's no historical continuity or link between Stalin and the revolutions and governments of Raul Castro or Hugo Chavez, or the Vietnamese revolution...except to the extent that some trotskyists can chain together a great-man-theory of infection through association via Khruschev, even though Khruschev like Trotsky rejected Stalin. Such is totally nonsensical though.

[revolution inaction]

I'm not surprised by Stalinists getting a ton of rep, just the particular ones that are getting all the rep despite their awful politics. *cough* TVM *cough* (still love you though!)

awful politics is kind of one of the defining features of stalinists

[psgchisolm]

awful politics is kind of one of the defining features of stalinists
lol I clicked the quote button accidentially thinking it was the "Thanks for this post" button. Anyway +1

[Ismail]

Actually, "orthodox" Stalinists (Maoists/Hoxhaists) support the Soviet deployment in Hungary in 1956; that is, the literal origin of the term tankie - "sending in the tanks." It's just about the only thing that they like about Khrushchev. Actually Hoxha condemned Khrushchev's role in Hungary. He didn't condemn Soviet troops per se, he just considered Khrushchev an opportunist who used the opportunity to liquidate actual Marxist-Leninists. Keep in mind that the actual Hungarian party was basically dissolved and a new one proclaimed soon after the events.

Here's Hoxha talking about both Hungary and Czechoslovakia in 1968: http://www.marx2mao.com/Other/WCRC68.html

[Red Commissar]

Why do they have rep? It's the everlasting power of the mustache.

[KurtFF8]

Am I considered "one of those Stalninists" who has positive rep? :crying:

[TC]

For the record, the only people I consider stalinists are 1. people who dogmatically uphold everything stalin did and identify themselves as stalinists (i.e. open stalinists) 2. people who perpetuate stalin's chosen party organization and strategy of propaganda by political slander by participating in so-called trotskyist formations of hierarchical structure, centralized discipline, and label their opponents on the left with the label "stalinist" (i.e. crypto-stalinists).

Given this, Maldoror is amongst the Stalinists with the most reputation. How did that happen?;)

[L.A.P.]

I'm sick of getting shit on!

[black magick hustla]

There's no historical continuity or link between Stalin and the revolutions and governments of Raul Castro or Hugo Chavez, or the Vietnamese revolution...except to the extent that some trotskyists can chain together a great-man-theory of infection through association via Khruschev, even though Khruschev like Trotsky rejected Stalin. Such is totally nonsensical though.

well hugo chavez is not a "communist" so idk, and of course their is a continuity with the socialism of the castros to the socialism of stalin. it was after all, popular front comintern politics that invented patriotic socialism. after all, there existed trotskyists in cuba.

[black magick hustla]

Given this, Maldoror is amongst the Stalinists with the most reputation. How did that happen?;)

i see wat u did dar

[TC]

i see wat u did dar


Well, thanks for being good humored about it :)

Cause...being called a stalinist when you don't identify with Stalin or Stalinism can get pretty infuriating :blink: - in fact this was the subject of about 90% of my discussions with workers power members my first year of undergrad university.

[Kléber]

Actually Hoxha condemned Khrushchev's role in Hungary. He didn't condemn Soviet troops per se, he just considered Khrushchev an opportunist who used the opportunity to liquidate actual Marxist-Leninists.
Did he make these condemnations at the time, or after the split?


Keep in mind that the actual Hungarian party was basically dissolved and a new one proclaimed soon after the events.Gee, purging a party's leadership and veteran activists constitutes dissolving it and proclaiming a new one? I guess Stalin and his cronies deserve credit for "refounding" the CPSU and all Communist Parties of the world through murder and subterfuge.


Here's Hoxha talking about both Hungary and Czechoslovakia in 1968: http://www.marx2mao.com/Other/WCRC68.htmlTell me, if the word "force" means terrorism according to you, how is Hoxha's little speech there calling for "violence" against "revisionists," not an incitement to terrorist acts against Soviet officials?


There's no historical continuity or link between Stalin and the revolutions and governments of Raul Castro or Hugo Chavez, or the Vietnamese revolution...except to the extent that some trotskyists can chain together a great-man-theory of infection through association via Khruschev, even though Khruschev like Trotsky rejected Stalin. Such is totally nonsensical though.
First of all, I don't think anyone called Chávez a Stalinist, even if he is the product of military work by the official Communism of Venezuela. He has claimed to sympathize with Trotsky but is ultimately a bourgeois nationalist like Juan Velasco Alvarado of Peru.

Next - as maldoror mentioned, the Cuban Revolutionary Workers' Party (Trotskyist) was banned in 1965 following a campaign of arrests and intimidation, at the behest of the Popular Socialist Party (pro-Soviet grouping of former official Stalinist Communists) and Soviet advisors in Cuba like the ultra-Stalinist Enrique Líster who had been hunting "Trotskyites" since the Spanish Civil War.

In Vietnam there were two Trotskyist groups, one of which joined the Viet Minh government, the other organized an independent guerrilla detachment to fight the French. Both were ruthlessly destroyed by Stalinist kidnappers and assassins under the orders of Ho Chi Minh, to stop them from gaining power in Saigon and the surrounding area in the aftermath of WWII. Soviet authorities had been advising their agents in Vietnam to break off their unique united front with Trotskyism for years, since the late 30's, until the betrayal finally happened in 1945.

You seem to be under the false assumption that people have some kind of issue with Stalin the man. The individual is completely irrelevant. Stalinism does not refer to Stalin himself, but to the policies of the Soviet bureaucracy from 1928. Khrushchev's "anti-Stalinism" was a sham. He condemned Stalin (as Stalin had condemned Yezhov) and mitigated social inequality a little bit, but did not challenge the despotism of the bureaucracy, allow freedom for trade unions and other political parties, nor repudiate the revisionist counter-revolutionary foreign policy of Stalinism. He was a reform Stalinist at best, but let's not forget that he never apologized for his own personal role in sending tens of thousands of good Communists and Soviet citizens to their deaths. Khrushchev said in 1936: "Everyone who rejoices in the successes achieved in our country, the victories of our party led by the great Stalin, will find only one word suitable for the mercenary, fascist dogs of the Trotskyite-Zinovievite gang. That word is execution."

[TC]

D
Next - as maldoror mentioned, the Cuban Revolutionary Workers' Party (Trotskyist) was banned in 1965 following a campaign of arrests and intimidation,

You do realize that they were really really crazy right? Like really really really crazy. Like they thought UFOs proved socialism on other planets and nuclear war was a good thing (the "people's bomb!") so they tried to attack the Americans at gitmo and got banned for, you know, trying to instigate wwiii. If you want to claim the Posidistas as your comrades be my guest but I was happy to call them not-trotskyists but crazies.

[black magick hustla]

the posadistas were not always "insane". early they were good militants imo. there is a rumor floating which unfortunately i cant back up that posadas was tortured by the argentinian military and he started going nuts after that.

[Ismail]

Did he make these condemnations at the time, or after the split?He felt that Nagy should have been tried in Hungary rather than the USSR, for instance. Obviously after the split and after the Soviets broke with Albania Hoxha could say these things openly.


Gee, purging a party's leadership and veteran activists constitutes dissolving it and proclaiming a new one? I guess Stalin and his cronies deserve credit for "refounding" the CPSU and all Communist Parties of the world through murder and subterfuge.No, they literally proclaimed a new party.

[Kléber]

You do realize that they were really really crazy right? Like really really really crazy. Like they thought UFOs proved socialism on other planets
I do not follow Posadas and his uniquely ridiculous theses, but he was no more in favor of nuclear war than Castro at one point. By "workers' bombs" the Posadists referred only to the nuclear arsenals of deformed workers' states, namely the USSR. The speculation about aliens began in 1968 (three years after the Cuban POR[T] was banned and broken up) but as far as I know the Posadists never wasted their time and resources trying to contact extraterrestrial life, nor did they spend money researching UFO's like the US and Soviet governments.


and nuclear war was a good thing (the "people's bomb!") so they tried to attack the Americans at gitmo and got banned for, you know, trying to instigate wwiii.The POR(T) did call on Castro's government to throw the US imperialists out of Guantánamo Bay, for which it was criticized as ultraleft by the US SWP, but the Cuban Trotskyists never tried to organize a mass march, launch a military adventure, or otherwise provoke war with the US. The Cuban Stalinists claimed that the POR(T) was planning to attack the base but that's a baseless lie.


If you want to claim the Posidistas as your comrades be my guest but I was happy to call them not-trotskyists but crazies.These "crazies" were the comrades of Che Guevara who defended them as sincere revolutionaries.

From Tennant, Gary. Dissident Cuban Communism: The Case of Trotskyism, 1932-1965 (http://www.cubantrotskyism.net/PhD/chap7.html#sec71):

Disillusioned with Moscow and finding himself on the losing slope in the internal leadership struggles, Guevara increasingly expressed and acted upon his own personal convictions. No longer having any particular axe to grind against the Trotskyists, who themselves shared Guevara's sympathies for the Chinese in the Sino-Soviet dispute, he was instrumental in freeing a number of the POR(T) members imprisoned in La Cabaña jail in Havana. Roberto Tejera was released on the orders of Guevara the day after he had been interviewed by Che personally about his supposed crimes.(73) (http://www.cubantrotskyism.net/PhD/chap7.html#footnote73) Similarly, Armando Machado was released from prison in Havana on Guevara's initiative.(74) (http://www.cubantrotskyism.net/PhD/chap7.html#footnote74)

In Havana, Roberto Acosta was also arrested in early 1965 after a mimeographed version of Trotsky's The Revolution Betrayed with a new Cuban introduction was printed in his house.(80) (http://www.cubantrotskyism.net/PhD/chap7.html#footnote80) When Guevara returned from Africa he apparently became aware of Acosta's arrest and detention because of the Trotskyist's absence from his post in the Ministry of Industry. Having already lost the strategic arguments over revolutionary strategy, Guevara convened a meeting with Acosta.(81) (http://www.cubantrotskyism.net/PhD/chap7.html#footnote81) According to Roberto Acosta, although the meeting took place in the presence of officials from G-2, Guevara expressed the view that Acosta was a revolutionary, that if the Trotskyists thought they were right then they should continue the struggle to obtain what they were fighting for, and that at some point in the future Trotskyist publications would be legal.(82) (http://www.cubantrotskyism.net/PhD/chap7.html#footnote82) As Guevara said, 'Acosta, you can't kill ideas with blows'.(83) (http://www.cubantrotskyism.net/PhD/chap7.html#footnote83) Assuring Acosta that he would be freed shortly,(84) (http://www.cubantrotskyism.net/PhD/chap7.html#footnote84) Guevara apparently closed the meeting with an embrace and the words: 'See you in the next trenches'.(85) (http://www.cubantrotskyism.net/PhD/chap7.html#footnote85)

A few days later, officials of G-2 returned with the proposal that all the Trotskyists would be released on condition that they agreed to cease all organised activity and refrain from publishing any material.(86) (http://www.cubantrotskyism.net/PhD/chap7.html#footnote86) While during previous periods of imprisonment the Trotskyists had carried out political work amongst other prisoners, drawing up re-educational plans which defended the Revolution at the same time as defending their own programme and the POR(T)'s right to legal existence,(87) (http://www.cubantrotskyism.net/PhD/chap7.html#footnote87) other political considerations appear to have taken precedence. Specifically, with questions being raised about Guevara's whereabouts as his disappearance from public life became evident, the Trotskyists knew that they no longer had any protection from the prospect of lengthy periods of incarceration.(88) (http://www.cubantrotskyism.net/PhD/chap7.html#footnote88)

[Knight of Cydonia]

Wasn't there an anarchist rep conspiracy some time ago?
ah, i remember that...why don't we anarchists do that shit again? shall we?

[gorillafuck]

Posadas theories were pretty nuts.

I've also heard he started going nuts after being tortured, I can't find much on it though.

[A.J.]

You are wrong here. The term is older, and didn't come from the Euros. It was first used after the Hungarian uprising in 1956, long before the Euros were spawned.

Devrim

I would have to see some evidence that the term was in usage prior to about the mid-1970s before I admit to being mistaken on this matter.