Historical Figures That Would Be Restricted On Revleft

[Cleansing Conspiratorial Revolutionary Flame]

:lol:

Lenin:

*State-Capitalism

http://abyteofenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/lenin-09.jpg

[Panda Tse Tung]

Stalin, Marx & Engels - homophobia
Mao - troll

I guess this would make them banned, not restricted...
Also, state-capitalism isn't a restrictable offense. Unless of course one refers to him/herself as such.

[dernier combat]

Kropotkin for supporting the Allies in WW1 against the Central Powers

[ZeroNowhere]

Marx didn't say anything homophobic, as far as I can recall. He would be restricted for 'discriminatory language' pretty quickly, though. Engels would just have people ranting for hours on end about how he promotes a boys' locker-room mentality in Chit Chat.


Kropotkin for supporting the Allies in WW1 against the Central PowersHe wouldn't get restricted for that.

[synthesis]

Definitely Che Guevara.

[Dumb]

Malcolm X.

[Red Future]

Malcolm X.

He would last about 20 minutes

[Pirate Utopian]

All of them.

[dernier combat]

He wouldn't get restricted for that.
An explanation is in order.

[praxis1966]

I've said it elsewhere, but I think Bakunin would beat them all as far as getting the boot. Well, except maybe Malcolm, but he'd probably just get canned for prosthelytizing. Yeah, anybody who's read God and the State knows he was just about the biggest troll, like, evar. Hell, they kicked him out of the First International for trolling Marx, lmao.

[Zanthorus]

An explanation is in order.

I can't think of any examples but I'm pretty sure we have had posters in the past who defended the Allies in WWI. We also have hordes of users who support the Allies in WWII because that time it was apparently a fight of the glorious socialist motherland in a pristine and selfless struggle against fascism.

[dernier combat]

I can't think of any examples but I'm pretty sure we have had posters in the past who defended the Allies in WWI.
We also have hordes of users who support the Allies in WWII because that time it was apparently a fight of the glorious socialist motherland in a pristine and selfless struggle against fascism.
good god why

[NoOneIsIllegal]

Daniel De Leon. Every post would be about why your party or organization sucks. Not just that, but that every member in the organization isn't a true socialist either.

[Omsk]

We also have hordes of users who support the Allies in WWII because that time it was apparently a fight of the glorious socialist motherland in a pristine and selfless struggle against fascism.

I support the Soviet Union (in this context,ie WW2) and to any sane individual,there is nothing wrong with that.On the other hand,im not too crazy about America in WW2.

[ZeroNowhere]

Daniel De Leon. Every post would be about why your party or organization sucks. Not just that, but that every member in the organization isn't a true socialist either.I don't think that you can get restricted on Revleft for criticizing others frequently. I mean, just about every party and organization does suck, but one would generally not be restricted for saying so.

In any case, De Leon in his own time probably spent more time criticizing trade union leaders and such than even the SPA, and usually only criticized leftists when they were somewhat relevant to events or, in the case of the SPA, came about as the result of an attempted coup in the SLP, or otherwise came into direct confrontation with them. Otherwise, he was generally not too concerned with writing about them, and if we are to restrict his posts to relatively prominent leftist organizations, I don't think that would make him go much further than many other Revleft posters.

In any case, it's not an offence that would lead to restriction. In fact, I think De Leon would generally be fairly safe here. Bordiga may have also been, perhaps, although he'd be walking on a knife-edge.

[Tablo]

Bakunin would get banned pretty quickly for anti-semitism. I don't necessarily think Kropotkin would be banned or restricted. His politics were acceptable beyond stuff like support for the allies in WWI as has already been mentioned. Trotsky would be banned for being a secret Nazi collaborating with stormfront to topple our glorious socialist web forum. :lol:

[Iraultzaile Ezkerreko]

Trotsky would be banned for being a secret Nazi collaborating with stormfront to topple our glorious socialist web forum. :lol:

Lies, the anarcho-trot conspiracy will never allow such a travesty to occur!

[praxis1966]

Bakunin would get banned pretty quickly for anti-semitism.

That, too. I think Gramsci might have made the cut for staying in. He was actually in favor of neutrality in re WWI, IIRC. Plus, he saved his vitriol pretty much exclusively for Stalin, Croce & Co., and Mussolini, the first being a favorite whipping boy of pretty much everybody on this site apart from the M-L's.

[Tablo]

Lies, the anarcho-trot conspiracy will never allow such a travesty to occur!
Of course. Trotsky would be an admin.

[bailey_187]

That, too. I think Gramsci might have made the cut for staying in. He was actually in favor of neutrality in re WWI, IIRC. Plus, he saved his vitriol pretty much exclusively for Stalin, Croce & Co., and Mussolini, the first being a favorite whipping boy of pretty much everybody on this site apart from the M-L's.

i thought gramsci was part of the pro-stalin faction? or did he change his mind later in prison or something? (srs question)

[Jazzratt]

We'd probably ban Hitler and Mussolini for fascism. Eventually, anyway. Probably only after we banned Joe Hill as a sockpuppet in a fit of unreasoning paranoia.

[praxis1966]

i thought gramsci was part of the pro-stalin faction? or did he change his mind later in prison or something? (srs question)

I think it was more nuanced than that... It's been a while since I've read either Hegemony and Revolution or anything from the horse's mouth so I'm a bit fuzzy on the details (in other words, you could be right).

From Wiki:

"In 1926 Joseph Stalin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin)'s manoeuvres inside the Bolshevik party moved Gramsci to write a letter to the Comintern (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comintern), in which he deplored opposition led by Leon Trotsky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_Trotsky), but also underlined some presumed faults of the leader. Togliatti, in Moscow as a representative of the party, received the letter, opened it, read it, and decided not to deliver it. This caused a difficult conflict between Gramsci and Togliatti which they never completely resolved."

There's also this (source (http://southerncrossreview.org/46/stewart-gramsci.htm)):

"Antonio Gramsci was one of the early critics of the structures of Stalinist Communism, even though he did not live to experience the total degeneration of Soviet Communism. He didn’t know the full extent of Stalin’s purges, of the repressions and the deportations of entire peoples, and of the transformation of Communism into Soviet nationalism.

After Stalin’s death, the revelation of his crimes at the famous XX Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in 1956 shook the world. That same year the arrival of Soviet tanks in Communist Budapest to crush the uprising of Hungarian workers was the last straw for Western Communists. In those ideological times, some Western Communists recalled Gramsci’s reservations. Many broke with Moscow. The relationship between West European Communism and the USSR deteriorated. As one Italian Communist recently recalled of the year 1956, “the age of innocence was over.”

In other words, it sounds to me like he admired Lenin but had serious reservations about both Trotsky and Stalin.


Eventually, anyway. Probably only after we banned Joe Hill as a sockpuppet in a fit of unreasoning paranoia.

:laugh:

[ColonelCossack]

they might not bet banned because they're such important leftist historical figures that the whole world owes so much to.

[Jazzratt]

they might not bet banned because they're such important leftist historical figures that the whole world owes so much to. If someone came on here and said, for example, "I'm Joseph Stalin" I'd assume they were either a troll or had completely lost their marbles - so even if these guys did actually turn up on the site and tried to tell us who they were they'd be banned. If they didn't then we would only be able to judge them on their opinions as voiced on this website, some of which are rooted in very archaic thinking which is frowned upon here.

[Tommy4ever]

Lets imagine for a sec that the internet had developed a couple of decades earlier. And revleft had opened in say 1980 when people like Tito, Molotov and Hoxha were still alive (I'm sure plenty of even more people that I'm forgetting too). What do you think would happen if one of these guys showed up claiming to be themselves? :p

Imagine say, Molotov, was talking about the Soviet Union and slying threw in a little racist dig at the Jews. Would he be banned? :p

[Zanthorus]

i thought gramsci was part of the pro-stalin faction? or did he change his mind later in prison or something? (srs question)

Yes he was pro-Stalin. His followers like to dance around the point, but he was directly involved in the explusion of the Bordigists in the Italian Communist Party, and imposed Zinoviev's Bolshevisation drive. His 'theories' amount to Kautskyite voluntarism anyway but for some reason Trots get a hard on for martyred stalinists like him and Che Guevara.

[Sasha]

Having just reread trotsky's "fascism, what is it and how do we fight it" (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1944/1944-fas.htm) I'm pretty sure the man would be in the antifa section getting into huge fights with the trotskists and end up being labeled an "squadist" by them.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

All of them...

[Rafiq]

Everyone who was born in the 19th century

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Everyone who was born in the 19th century
Just everyone who was born.

[Agent Ducky]

We'd restrict Fidel Castro, I bet.

[Broletariat]

I don't think that you can get restricted on Revleft for criticizing others frequently.


No but you might get banned for it.

[Sir Comradical]

Of course. Trotsky would be an admin.

You can't really fault Trotsky, he was pretty clean.

[Sir Comradical]

Tito: "FAO: Hot girls on revleft, send me your nudes."

Banned.

[Red Commissar]

Tito: "FAO: Hot girls on revleft, send me your nudes."

Banned.

http://grisson.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/grison-tito.jpg

Misogynist

[Rusty Shackleford]

proudhon for being peti-bourgeois.

[Manic Impressive]

Marx for trolling - he often destroyed peoples arguments completely humiliating them in the process and could have been described as an intellectual bully while at the same time being a patient teacher. Admins would decide to ban him due to receiving too many complaints from his victims.

Proudhon - Mutualists are automatically restricted already, right?

[Os Cangaceiros]

proudhon for being peti-bourgeois.

That doesn't automatically get you restricted or banned.

He'd be banned for other things, though. Boy would he ever.

[ZeroNowhere]

Marx for trolling - he often destroyed peoples arguments completely humiliating them in the process and could have been described as an intellectual bully while at the same time being a patient teacher. Admins would decide to ban him due to receiving too many complaints from his victims.If Rosa survived as long as she did, Marx certainly wouldn't have any problems.


proudhon for being peti-bourgeois.Again, you don't get banned or restricted for that.


No but you might get banned for it.No, one can't get banned simply for criticizing people either. Especially if one actually contributes to the forums, which Marx would do by merit of being Marx.

Stalin would get restricted or banned in so many ways.

[Q]

If someone came on here and said, for example, "I'm Joseph Stalin" I'd assume they were either a troll or had completely lost their marbles...

What about "hi, I'm Jacob Richter!"?

"Jacob Richter" of course being one of the many pseudonyms of Lenin

:D

[Os Cangaceiros]

I can't think of any examples but I'm pretty sure we have had posters in the past who defended the Allies in WWI. We also have hordes of users who support the Allies in WWII because that time it was apparently a fight of the glorious socialist motherland in a pristine and selfless struggle against fascism.

This is something I've noticed too, actually. What I find especially amusing are those who defend Stalin's economic record due to the fact that it all culminated somehow in the glorious Red Army crushing the fascist menace.

[ZeroNowhere]

If someone came on here and said, for example, "I'm Joseph Stalin" I'd assume they were either a troll or had completely lost their marbles...
What about "hi, I'm Jacob Richter!"?

"Jacob Richter" of course being one of the many pseudonyms of Lenin

:DWell, they certainly aren't a troll...

[The Man]

Marx would get restricted for a few anti-Semitic writings in Capital

[Pretty Flaco]

Adam Smith

[tachosomoza]

Martin Luther King, Jr. (preacher)

Franklin D. Roosevelt (bourgeois)

Ivan Boesky (really bourgeois, has a criminal record)

Ho Chi Minh, Mao, Lumumba (Bad english trolls) :lol:

[Aurora]

What about "hi, I'm Jacob Richter!"?

"Jacob Richter" of course being one of the many pseudonyms of Lenin

:D

Well perhaps he hasn't lost all his marbles but surely hes a few fries short of a happy meal...

[Jose Gracchus]

Ivan Boesky (really bourgeois, has a criminal record)

You get restricted for having a criminal record?

[tachosomoza]

You get restricted for having a criminal record?

Whoops, my bad. My record would get me banned. :lol:

[L.A.P.]

Noam Chomsky would just be generally disliked and get the worst of being called a Liberal.

Every member of the Frankfurt School would get restricted for ideological treason.

[bezdomni]

Daniel De Leon. Every post would be about why your party or organization sucks. Not just that, but that every member in the organization isn't a true socialist either.

So he would fit right in with the Spartacist League?

[Maximum Marxist]

Kropotkin for supporting the Allies in WW1 against the Central Powers

Hey guys, why is it bad to support the allies in WWI?

[dernier combat]

Hey guys, why is it bad to support the allies in WWI?
Assuming you're not trolling, it would have something to do with the fact that it was a war for empire, and one in which millions of workers were sent by the ruling capitalist class (read: ruling classes of both sides of the conflict) to fight and die for their greed.

[tachosomoza]

Hey guys, why is it bad to support the allies in WWI?

Because it was a war other than that which toppled capitalism and it's inherent prejudices.

[Rafiq]

Damnit, if that asshole Chomsky every makes an account here, just ban his ass right away. Hate that guy...

[S.Artesian]

Marx would get restricted for a few anti-Semitic writings in Capital


What anti-semitic writings in Capital?

[S.Artesian]

Let's see: Eldridge Cleaver, and with good reason. Congrats to the Mod/Admin who banned him. Rennie Davis [became a guru follower]. Tom Hayden--mos def. Hey... pick any name off the Z net list.

[synthesis]

Let's see: Eldridge Cleaver, and with good reason. Congrats to the Mod/Admin who banned him.

What?

[Rafiq]

What anti-semitic writings in Capital?

I think he means On the Jewish question, which was no doubt antisemitic.

[9]

On the Jewish question, which was no doubt antisemitic.

How was it "antisemitic" exactly...?

[gorillafuck]

You get restricted for having a criminal record?we check all our members criminal records very carefully.

[S.Artesian]

What?


Was a joke. But Eldridge Cleaver was somebody who's "authority" in the left was only and indication of the left's ignorance.

[CynicalIdealist]

Hugo Chavez for being a reformist. Kim Jong-Il for Juche and being an egomaniac more generally.

[Magón]

Makhno would get banned for trolling the Leninists at every chance he got.

[tachosomoza]

Don't forget Malcolm X for being a nationalist.

[ZeroNowhere]

I was just reading over the Revleft FAQ, and given the wording of the section on people being restricted for being anti-abortion, Marx could quite possibly be restricted for not upholding rights theory.

In all likelihood it just means that somebody was reading too much Judith Jarvis Thomson, and doesn't have any deeper implications, though.

[Coyote]

You guys forgot Kautsky, for not being enough of an internationalist.

[NoOneIsIllegal]

http://www.quotezuki.com/avatars/2010/10/22/karl-radek-avatar-1410.jpg

I'm jus sayin

[Zanthorus]

You guys forgot Kautsky, for not being enough of an internationalist.

He's been posting here for quite a while and still seems to be going strong though...

[Red Commissar]

I wonder, would people like August Willich or Joseph Weydemeyer be potentially restricted due to their participation in war?