Problems of redstarism 200

[MC_Communist]

Redstar 2000 is a Anti-leninist .

Let me Quote him "The Bolshivik party is Quasi Millitary party of intelligenzia Elite
( Stalin was a exception ) " .

He says that this detailed in WITBD , But the Only point He says Anything about
the inteliginzia as the leader of the masses is qouting Kuatsky . He , after Quoting Kuatsky
Says that its not completly true. Lenin at that point couldnmt , from a streategic point of view , break with kuatsky .

Enfact , When dealing With What a Proffesinial reveliutionary is , Lenin Says
" A Proffesinial reveloution is simply someone whom dedicates most ( Prefrably all ) of
there time to reveloutionary activity ".

He says that a Socialist Reveloution in Russia was impossible and things wouldnt be diffrent if trotsky was the man . the following points argue for leninism

1) if the economic conditions for socialism didnt exist , why was there soviets and factory commitees ( and if Lenin was a State Capitiialist , how come he didnt didnt dissolve these bodys )

2)If trotsky would have been the same as the state capitilist stalin , There would have to of been a economic base for buracrats in the RSR b. In the Non Russian Rublics ,This anti Buracrat law passed by lenin didnt exist , allowing for stalin to be a buracrat . Here is the anti Buracracy Law ...



Re Comrade Shlyapnikov’s inquiry concerning rates of pay for high ranking officials, the CP.C,

1) confirms that the decree establishing 500-ruble monthly salaries for members of the Council of People’s
Commissars is to be interpreted as an approximate norm for top salaries and contains no prohibition to pay
specialists more;

2) calls attention once more to the fact that the decree of the C.P.C. contains a demand for revolutionary
measures to be taken to reduce excessively high salaries;[2]

3) directs all People’s Commissars immediately to report what has been done in fulfilment of this decree;

4) directs the Commissar for Finance to submit a report as to whether resolute measures have been taken to
collect income tax and eliminate evasions in the payment of this tax;

5) directs the local Soviets of Workers’, Soldiers’ and Peasants’ Deputies to take more energetic measures to
collect the special tax on excessively high incomes.

Similar laws also existed ,but only in the RSR .

3) Trotsky couldnt of been a buracrat becuase he was a RSR (Russian Soviet Republic )
Official . He couldnt bulid a class that didnt exist . Why did a buracracy develop ?
Becuase stalin created a federation as opposed to lenins commonwealth , he was albeale to repel the law and gro the buracray in the main republic . by 1945 russsia was counter reveloution state capitialist .

That's just a out line of my argument , sorry for spelling . ill post more latter.

PS this is my first post on this board , but ive been looking at this bnoard for years .( Could nebver register seccsusfuly )

[Lardlad95]

You've been lurking for years?

And after 2 posts you create an analysis of a respected member and tell him what is wrong with him?

You've got cajones jr.

[MC_Communist]

Not a critique of him , just his line . Plus , i havent been able to register before . And i wasnt realy learking , but i have swimed through this forum before .

The purpose of a forum is disscusion . Right know im dissgusting . Pun intented .

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2003, 09:58 PM
Not a critique of him , just his line . Plus , i havent been able to register before . And i wasnt realy learking , but i have swimed through this forum before .

The purpose of a forum is disscusion . Right know im dissgusting . Pun intented .
and it was a very funny pun.

I think however that I shall leave this disscussion as Redstar and I have only butted heads on religion never ideology

[MC_Communist]

Im not saying redstar not intelliget , im just sayiong he must confront his Idelogical error .

[MC_Communist]

Also here is the Reason why we need a Reveloutionary Party

4) After the spontanoues Phase , a Orginizatuion representing the prolatariat to lead the masses into the Next level of RTeveloution is neccacary . Look at france 68 .

I dare any Stalinist , Anarchist , or What ever youre Idealougy is to proove me Wrong .

[Vinny Rafarino]

So who's balls do you wanna break kid? Redstar's? All the anarchists and "stalinists" Who kid, who?

Perhaps you would like to view the one hundred threads on The Trot versus comrade Stalin...or The Trot versus the Anarchists...Whatever kiddo. We'ver heard it all before. And from the posts you have made so far, I think there is nothing new that you could bring to the table that we have not beaten dead twenty years ago.

Don't worry son, there are plenty of misguided Trotskyists on this site that will be more than happy to welcome you into their fold...As long as you agree to spend a little money on the creation of some nice glossy leaflets......

[Blackberry]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2003, 07:38 AM
Redstar 2000 is a Anti-leninist .
Well, I guess that settles everything!

[redstar2000]

I take it that English is not your native language. I will try to respond to your criticisms as best I could comprehend them. If I make a mistake in understanding, please forgive me.


1) if the economic conditions for socialism didn't exist, why were there soviets and factory committees (and if Lenin was a State Capitalist , how come he didn't dissolve these bodies)

I think the workers, soldiers and peasants who created those popular organs in the aftermath of the February 1917 revolution sincerely believed that those institutions would radically change the political and economic landscape of Russia. In the urban and more developed parts of Russia, they even thought they were starting on the road to socialism...even though a moment's thought would have suggested how "utopian" an idea like that was in a country that was 80 percent peasantry.

Various forms of "popular assemblies" are always characteristic of genuine revolutions--and February 1917 was "the real thing" in that regard. That doesn't mean that those assemblies will endure...unless the material conditions will support that endurance.

In Russia, they didn't. Lenin and the Bolsheviks dissolved the factory committees in the period 1918-1921 in favor of "one-man management". The soviets became "rubber-stamp" bodies over the same time-frame...only trusted party members were allowed to run or members were just simply appointed. They ceased to represent the will of their nominal constituencies and just parroted whatever the party--especially its Political Bureau--decided.


2)If Trotsky would have been the same as the state capitalist Stalin, there would have to have been an economic base for bureaucrats in the RSR. In the non-Russian Republics, this anti- Bureaucrat law passed by Lenin didn't exist, allowing for Stalin to be a bureaucrat . Here is the anti-Bureaucracy Law...

The USSR had many laws; the rulers observed the ones they wanted to when they wanted to...otherwise they just ignored them.

You must remember that in any form of class society, the law is the servant of the ruling class, not its master.

A few people will argue endlessly that Stalin was "better" than Trotsky or that Trotsky "would have been better" than Stalin. In my view, they are museum curators throwing old bones at each other.

The available evidence suggests that Trotsky would have, in the personal sphere, lived a more luxurious life-style than Stalin preferred.

Otherwise, I think they would have effectively behaved in the same way. (Though it's hard to imagine Stalin in exile forming a "4th International", I think he could have done it...and it would have taken the same political positions as Trotsky's "International" did.)


3) Trotsky couldn't of been a bureaucrat because he was a RSR (Russian Soviet Republic )
Official. He couldn't build a class that didn't exist. Why did a bureaucracy develop? Because Stalin created a federation as opposed to Lenin's commonwealth, he was able to repeal the law and grow the bureaucracy in the main republic. By 1945 Russia was counter-revolutionary state capitalist.

You are making a number of assumptions that are not supported by any evidence. In the earliest months after October 1917, the party-state bureaucracy grew enormously and while it did shrink a bit during Lenin's New Economic Policy, it started growing again before Lenin's corpse was cold and never stopped thereafter.

The "new ruling class" was there from the beginning.

I think you place far too much emphasis on the various "constitutional" changes that took place while the USSR existed. Changes in form are not the same as changes in content.

It never mattered, for example, whether the Ukraine was "part" of a commonwealth or "part" of a federation. The party's leaders in Kiev were appointed by the party's leaders in Moscow and responsible to them.

The guy that Lenin appointed to run the party and the government in Petrograd--Zinoviev--was actively despised by the working class in that city; in early 1921, there were wide-spread strikes...against him as much as anything else.

To no avail...the working class of Petrograd had no power.

If you are going to speak of "socialism" in which the working class has no power, what meaning is left in the word?

What do you have but a "corporation" swollen to engulf the entire economy? Where the guys on top decide and are responsible only to themselves. Where everyone else, on the bottom of course, is expected to work and obey.

What you have is what I have lately taken to calling Socialism, Inc.

I don't know about you, but the whole idea is one that I reject.

You understand, it's because I'm a communist.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

PS: Whoops, missed one!


After the spontaneous Phase, an Organization representing the proletariat to lead the masses into the next level of Revolution is necessary. Look at France 68.

An especially poor choice of examples from your point of view. In 1968 there was an organization that claimed to "represent the proletariat" and it was a big one--the Communist Party of France.

They actively collaborated with the French capitalist class to end the general strike.

If proletarian revolution is your priority, the one thing you don't need is a Leninist party.

They'll do all they can to stop it!

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[MC_Communist]

When Lenin Natinolizied a Industry , it simply meant that it was under the Direct control of the economic concil . You have no proof to show that a 1 manager system was impemented . They simply had to meet Quotas and send off Supplys to where the state said .

I will however give you that by 1930 those bodys collopased , degenarating the state further .

Regarding Buracrat'S waages , Rember that both lenin , even juring there period as Commisars , lived in 1 room apartments . Hover the Buracts lived in Luxiorios Apartments in georgia . Stalin lived in the kremlin .

I think we both belve that Russsia was backward and isolated and thats why it became State Capitlist .

How could the Buracrats be there from the beging ?! they would have develop before reaching the hights of being a new class . By 1945 they were the Ruling class However it had to historicly develop .

I would alaso like to say i have to go but will finnish latter .

[The Feral Underclass]

i love you RS2k

[YKTMX]

If proletarian revolution is your priority, the one thing you don't need is a Leninist party.

I think this is true of earlier, Stalinist parties. However, to say that parties that support Lenin and Trotsky are still to this day counter revolutionary is pretty absurd. As far as I can see the most active elements of the far left are Leninists, the others are Liberals and "annual" anarchists.

Tell me RedStar, you presumably believe in the idea of a party? What lines would you like to see this party organised along?

[redstar2000]

Tell me RedStar, you presumably believe in the idea of a party? What lines would you like to see this party organised along?

Try this...

http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?a...T&f=6&t=5961&s= (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=6&t=5961&s=)

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by Libertarian [email protected] 29 2003, 04:11 PM
i love you RS2k
creeeeeeepy.

[Marxist in Nebraska]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2003, 02:43 PM
As far as I can see the most active elements of the far left are Leninists, the others are Liberals and "annual" anarchists.
What is an "annual" anarchist?

[sc4r]

Originally posted by Marxist in Nebraska+Oct 1 2003, 02:55 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Marxist in Nebraska @ Oct 1 2003, 02:55 AM)
[email protected] 29 2003, 02:43 PM
As far as I can see the most active elements of the far left are Leninists, the others are Liberals and "annual" anarchists.
What is an "annual" anarchist? [/b]
I dont know. But what I do know is the sheer number of different types of anarchist (many of whom are extremely bitter about the others) reveals as much as anything how hopelessly confused all of them actually are about how it could actually work.

All of them see that all the others are proposing something which does not actually provide a workable solution to the problem of getting a co-operative bonus out of millions of people, with different requirements in a modern economy. None of them seem to see that their own proposals fall into exactly the same category of dogmatic slogan chanting rubbish.

Anarchy belongs with Religion in the category of things which are self referential and address nothing objective.

Such ideas are attractive to many people, because they remove the need to contemplate the hard questions of reality, to which there are often only approximate answers, and substitute hard edged assertion. But of course the problem with assertions is that they address only words.

[redstar2000]

But what I do know is the sheer number of different types of anarchist (many of whom are extremely bitter about the others) reveals as much as anything how hopelessly confused all of them actually are about how it could actually work.

All of them see that all the others are proposing something which does not actually provide a workable solution to the problem of getting a co-operative bonus out of millions of people, with different requirements in a modern economy. None of them seem to see that their own proposals fall into exactly the same category of dogmatic slogan chanting rubbish.

Anarchy belongs with Religion in the category of things which are self referential and address nothing objective.

Such ideas are attractive to many people, because they remove the need to contemplate the hard questions of reality, to which there are often only approximate answers, and substitute hard edged assertion. But of course the problem with assertions is that they address only words.

What a brilliant and incisive critique&#33; What a work of bold genius&#33;

What a load of bourgeois crap&#33;

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

"A site about egocentricity and contradictory confusion"--sc4r
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[ElRuso1967]

How are we supposed to unite if we&#39;re constantly fighting amongst ouselves? every persons own political ideology has flaws, can&#39;t you two just accept that? while you two are biccering about the finer points of socialism there are hundreds of children dying every day from preventable diseases, millions lie in a state of degrading povery, billions don&#39;t have access to a decent education&#33; you two need to do something practical to REALLY change the world, rather than arguing with each other&#33; arguing with people that are supposed to be your political comrades. As leftists, we cant afford to waste even a single minute arguing with each other, when there still exists a state of poverty in the world.

[sc4r]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2003, 05:13 PM
How are we supposed to unite if we&#39;re constantly fighting amongst ouselves? every persons own political ideology has flaws, can&#39;t you two just accept that? while you two are biccering about the finer points of socialism there are hundreds of children dying every day from preventable diseases, millions lie in a state of degrading povery, billions don&#39;t have access to a decent education&#33; you two need to do something practical to REALLY change the world, rather than arguing with each other&#33; arguing with people that are supposed to be your political comrades. As leftists, we cant afford to waste even a single minute arguing with each other, when there still exists a state of poverty in the world.
Yes I can accept that. I have in fact offered to accept that. But RS has not accepted the offer (in fact he sneered at me for making it , just as a supporter of his just has in another thread). I didt like making the offer; and I doubt I would do it again, I was warned not to bother by someone else who has had the same experience.

Should I simply ignore it when he post that something I say is inspired by my supposed bourgeois sympathies or reformist attitudes? Well maybe I should, but then again maybe I should not; because in order to actually solve the sorts of problems you are, quite rightly, concerned about a degree of support for acytion is required. Redstar is poaching potential recruits for this support and persuading them that like him all they need to do is parade their grasp of slogans, denounce anyone who may want to ask &#39;yes all well and good but how do we actually do anything, what will work&#39;; and of course RS urges that they instead &#39;talk to others (by which he means repeat the slogans) so that in a few hundred years everything will be sorted out by millions of people simply realising that they have to be communists&#39;.

Thats not merely passive, it is encouraging passivity among those who just might otherwise not be.

Plus I got a short fuse with anyone who implies I&#39;m a traitor. That might not be an especially good thing, but its a fact.

Best wishes to you.

[ElRuso1967]

i think an anti-redstar 2000 faction is going to form very soon on this website if redstar doesnt stop being such a pompous git. viva la revolucion&#33; :che: :cuba: :castro:

[commie kg]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2003, 01:27 PM
i think an anti-redstar 2000 faction is going to form very soon on this website if redstar doesnt stop being such a pompous git. viva la revolucion&#33; :che: :cuba: :castro:
It&#39;s an interned message board. Who cares? There are already plenty of people who would be considered among your little clique.

[redstar2000]

You two need to do something practical to REALLY change the world, rather than arguing with each other&#33; arguing with people that are supposed to be your political comrades. As leftists, we can&#39;t afford to waste even a single minute arguing with each other, when there still exists a state of poverty in the world.

Have you noticed? This is a message board.

What do people do on message boards?

THEY ARGUE&#33;

Perhaps your keyboard is newer than mine; I don&#39;t have a "hot key" for proletarian revolution. Do you?

If you think there is "something practical to REALLY change the world" that we are overlooking, then by all means share the secret. Tell us your idea. We even have a special forum for this: Practice.

People will argue about your proposal. That&#39;s what people do on message boards. If argument--or "bickering" as you call it--annoys you, then turn off your computer and go outside and do something. This advice is especially appropriate in your case because you don&#39;t care about what exactly is really worth doing.

You want action? Go do some.

If you decide that you want to know what is really worth doing and what isn&#39;t, what is really worth fighting for and what isn&#39;t, then come back here and we will argue about that.

Otherwise, your post really belongs in this thread...

http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?a...&f=4&t=17626&s= (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=4&t=17626&s=)

And may I add that typing "viva la revolucion" at the end of a post has no known magical properties and has not been shown to extend the life of a revolution by so much as a single second.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

"A site about egocentricity and contradictory confusion"--sc4r
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[sc4r]

I&#39;m going to bicker some more, or argue if your prefer the term.

What the gentleman was saying Redstar is that the exchanges between us have an awfully large proportion of personal insult compared to substantive discussion.

Thats what he means by bickering.

And he is, of course, right both that there is an awful lot of it, and that it is totaly pointless.

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by Marxist in [email protected] 1 2003, 02:55 AM

What is an "annual" anarchist?
Middle class students who smash windows at one protest a year and then spend the other 364 days criticising other "revolutionaries". They usually have colourful hair and are always stoned. Joyless muthafuckers.

[ElRuso1967]

thanks for backing me up on this sc4r. Redstar 2000 must really be a moron if he doesnt know what the word &#39;bicker&#39; means. On message boards we should be discussing topics as comrades, not arguing with each other like were complete enemies. and this is sure to piss off the pompous git aka Redstar 2000:
Viva La Revolucion&#33;&#33;&#33; :che: :cuba: :castro:
Viva La Revolucion&#33;&#33;&#33; :che: :cuba: :castro:
Viva La Revolucion&#33;&#33;&#33; :che: :cuba: :castro:

[Dirty Commie]

Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX+Oct 2 2003, 01:51 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (YouKnowTheyMurderedX @ Oct 2 2003, 01:51 PM)
Marxist in [email protected] 1 2003, 02:55 AM

What is an "annual" anarchist?
Middle class students who smash windows at one protest a year and then spend the other 364 days criticising other "revolutionaries". They usually have colourful hair and are always stoned. Joyless muthafuckers. [/b]
I truly could not have better summed up every punk at my school.

[redstar2000]

"Moron"? "Pompous git"?

How "comradely" of you to say.

Welcome to Che-Lives, Comrade Asshole. :D

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

"A site about egocentricity and contradictory confusion"--sc4r
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Actually, if you don&#39;t have a hotkey for proletarian revolution on your keyboard, and can&#39;t be bothered to go to system settings, the shortcut is Ctrl-Alt-F4-Del-F5-AltGr.

[ElRuso1967]

Why thank you, comrade bastard :D

Viva La Revolucion :che: :cuba: :castro:

[YKTMX]

I think it&#39;s a compliment to get your own &#39;ISM&#39;, never mind a critique of it. You either have to be a brutal dictator or a great Marxist to get that usually, you haven&#39;t lead any tyrannies recently have you RedStar :unsure: ?

[redstar2000]

you haven&#39;t lead any tyrannies recently have you RedStar

No...but it&#39;s an idea. :lol:

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2003, 12:33 PM

you haven&#39;t lead any tyrannies recently have you RedStar

No...but it&#39;s an idea. :lol:

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas
Don&#39;t worry redstar when the anti-redstarist faction rises up I&#39;ll be righ there by your side helping to fight off the infedels...despite our differences in religion and political ideology.

You can be Castro and I"ll be Che..only this time I wont die