Are there people who communist parties won't accept as members?

[Queercommie Girl]

Just curious, are there certain categories of people communist parties won't accept as members? (Obviously this is likely to differ by tendency)

I'm talking about people such as:

1) People with obvious physical disabilities
2) People with obvious mental disabilities
3) Homeless people
4) Prostitutes
5) People with a serious and real criminal record (e.g. rape/murder against civilians, not just anti-authority "political crime", which many communists no doubt have committed too)
6) Very rich people (e.g. billionnaries)
7) Drug/alcohol addicts

[Welshy]

I can't speak for any group in particular, but this is what I think:




1) People with obvious physical disabilities

I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed join. Just because someone is physically disabled doesn't mean that they can't contribute to the organization.



2) People with obvious mental disabilities

Note really sure on this. I guess it depends on what type of mental disability. I mean I would love to yes in almost any case but if the disability is severe then one would have to wonder how productive they can be as a member of an organization.



3) Homeless people

Yes they should most definitely be allowed.



4) Prostitutes

Yes they should be allowed



5) People with a serious and real criminal record (e.g. rape/murder against civilians, not just anti-authority "political crime", which many communists no doubt have committed too)

I'm not sure, depends on the crime maybe?



6) Very rich people (e.g. billionnaries)

No communist organization should allow the very rich to be members. I mean how does someone get that rich with out being a capitalist or at least a member of the upper crust of the petty bourgeoisie?



7) Drug/alcohol addicts

Yes they should be allowed to join, however I think they should try to kick their addiction.

[Binh]

The only group of people that would probably be explicitly banned would be cops, military officers, government agents. Of course they don't announce themselves either.

[Tomhet]

@ Welshy, why does being addicted to drugs make one incapable of being a genuine revolutionary for the working class!?

[Commissar Rykov]

@ Welshy, why does being addicted to drugs make one incapable of being a genuine revolutionary for the working class!?
Because you will drink all the rum before everyone else can have a swig.:cursing:;)

[Welshy]

@ Welshy, why does being addicted to drugs make one incapable of being a genuine revolutionary for the working class!?

Where did I say this? I said that they should be allowed to join. I just think that for health reasons that they should kick their addiction or if their addiction is so bad they aren't able to fully function as a member.


Because you will drink all the rum before everyone else can have a swig.:cursing:;)

See someone understands! :tongue_smilie:

[Manic Impressive]

the party I'm in doesn't allow people who believe in god


No communist organization should allow the very rich to be members. I mean how does someone get that rich with out being a capitalist or at least a member of the upper crust of the petty bourgeoisie?
So you wouldn't have allowed Fredrick Engels in your party?

[Property Is Robbery]

the party I'm in doesn't allow people who believe in god

Do you mind me asking what party that is?

How would a party find out about crimes someone has committed?

[Welshy]

[/B]So you wouldn't have allowed Fredrick Engels in your party?

I don't think we should expect there to be another Fredrick Engels out there. What ever progressive elements that exist with in the capitalist class at the time of Marx and Engels are pretty much gone. Plus why should a communist organization put their trust in an individual to act in a way that is very much against their class interests? If you think they should, then that's pretty idealist.

[Astarte]

Its kind of a funny thing though. Sometimes the upper petty-bourgeoisie and the bourgeoisie will try to genuinely help a movement ... like take Kropotkin or Engels, etc, but there is still going to be inherent distrust on the part of the proletarian elements of the movement as to their true intentions. I think any bourgeois who wants to join a party would have to really prove themselves.

Also, after a vanguard party comes to power you may also find the bourgeoisie trying to convert themselves to commissars...

[Seth]

Just curious, are there certain categories of people communist parties won't accept as members? (Obviously this is likely to differ by tendency)

I don't really see what tendency has to do with it.


I'm talking about people such as:

1) People with obvious physical disabilities

I don't think that would ever be an obstacle, but I could be wrong. I can't imagine any physical condition that would cause a party to outright reject someone. If Stephen Hawking became a Marxist theoretician instead of a scientist no one would have any reason to reject him.


2) People with obvious mental disabilities

If their condition renders them unable to function socially, then they need care and help, not to join a party.


3) Homeless people
4) Prostitutes

No, they're welcome.


5) People with a serious and real criminal record (e.g. rape/murder against civilians, not just anti-authority "political crime", which many communists no doubt have committed too)

It depends on what they did.



6) Very rich people (e.g. billionnaries)

That would have to be decided on an individual basis.


7) Drug/alcohol addicts

Ditto as 2.

[o well this is ok I guess]

Its kind of a funny thing though. Sometimes the upper petty-bourgeoisie and the bourgeoisie will try to genuinely help a movement ... like take Kropotkin or Engels, etc, but there is still going to be inherent distrust on the part of the proletarian elements of the movement as to their true intentions. I think any bourgeois who wants to join a party would have to really prove themselves.

Also, after a vanguard party comes to power you may also find the bourgeoisie trying to convert themselves to commissars... I'm reminded of the scene in "Battle of Algiers" where they have all new recruits shoot a police officer (with an unloaded gun, but they're not told) to prove they're willing to work.

[Rusty Shackleford]

There is a limit for ones intake of intoxicants and ability to coherently function.

[Kornilios Sunshine]

I don't think richies would "waste" their time being members in communist parties.

[DarkPast]

From what I've gathered the local communists accept everyone except capitalists. Local anarchists additionally don't accept members of any political party that participates in the elections.

[EvilRedGuy]

I.W.W dosen't accept students, i don't get why, if they are from a working class family then they will be revolutionary, Students isn't a class anyway so either they are workers, reserve-workers or bourgeois. Also as previously said Lumpen/Bourgeosie dosen't necessarily determine whether they will assist the workers or not, look at theorists like Marx, Engels, Kropotkin, whatever, they gave up their bourgeois luxury and life for a fair society. If they are willing to sacrifice their life in exile, luxury, and all that crap then they are reliable in my opinion.

Might answer your questions but it has probably already been done, here goes:

1: and 2: disabilities dosen't determine ones class.
3: and 4: Prositues isn't necessarily bourgeois or lumpen or worker, and for me homeless are the more revolutionary class because they have nothing to lose.
5: and 6: Depends if they are former CIA agent or whatever, fuck em' and for the rich, wealth dosen't determine whether someone owns the MoP, though all capitalists are wealthy ofcourse.
7: Sure why not, infact the party members should help come over their addiction, unles they can handle to drink/take drugs let them though.

:)

[Luc]

I think they would allow a past rapist or murderer so long as they don't rape or murder anymore; perhaps they have changed.

but I can't say for sure because I'm an evil idealistic anarchist:p

[Nox]

1) People with obvious physical disabilities

There's no reason why they shouldn't be able to join.


2) People with obvious mental disabilities

I think that would depend on the individual case, for example if they're a psychopathic serial killer it might not be a good idea to let them in the party.


3) Homeless people

Of course, homeless people would be some of the most passionate members seeing as they've been right at the bottom of the capitalist society.


4) Prostitutes

I can see why you say this, but I think you need to realise that prostitutes are in most cases from very poor backgrounds who can't find a job and are only doing what they do to support themselves/their family.


5) People with a serious and real criminal record (e.g. rape/murder against civilians, not just anti-authority "political crime", which many communists no doubt have committed too)

It doesn't matter how bad the crime is, everyone can be reformed, so yes.


6) Very rich people (e.g. billionnaries)

This is a tricky one, because if someone was a billionaire why the hell would they be a communist?

If it was a billionaire who later became a communist, I guess he could join as long as he no longer exploited people.


7) Drug/alcohol addicts

Yes.

[StoneFrog]

I.W.W dosen't accept students, i don't get why, if they are from a working class family then they will be revolutionary, Students isn't a class anyway so either they are workers, reserve-workers or bourgeois.


Well my biggest issue with most Anarchist(not just reserved for anarchist) groups is that they're too overpopulated by students. Then you start to see integration of non socialist agendas, like veganism into the group. This doesn't help unite workers but create a bigger barrier. You start to loose the worker struggle, because all these other things have been stuck onto it. Also often students burn themselves out before really doing anything, become too amped up, but when they don't see immediate result they bail.

I say this because its from my own age group, so im weary of too much student involvement in the movement.

[Smyg]

I know my party has a tendency to disregard those with obvious mental problems.

[piet11111]

I don't think richies would "waste" their time being members in communist parties.

The chinese disagree.

I doubt if you where a genuine communist you would get into that party (do they allow working class people ?)

[EvilRedGuy]

I know my party has a tendency to disregard those with obvious mental problems.


That sucks, ever thought of leaving that party? I mean... is it like they ban anyone with the slightest obvious mental illnes even though they are working class? Even if they aren't able to think about thing like Communism they are still working class. :confused:

[Smyg]

Oh, trust me. I loathe my party completely. I'm inclined not to leave at the moment, as I fear I'd mentally crush one of my comrades... it's complicated.

[Tjis]

Well my biggest issue with most Anarchist(not just reserved for anarchist) groups is that they're too overpopulated by students. Then you start to see integration of non socialist agendas, like veganism into the group. This doesn't help unite workers but create a bigger barrier. You start to loose the worker struggle, because all these other things have been stuck onto it. Also often students burn themselves out before really doing anything, become too amped up, but when they don't see immediate result they bail.

I say this because its from my own age group, so im weary of too much student involvement in the movement.
How does veganism raise the bar? If anything, it lowers it. Muslims and Judaists can't eat pork, Hindus can't eat beef, and vegetarians and vegans can't eat any meat. Someone with no such dietary restrictions can eat vegan food just fine though.
Having a left-wing social space or event that has only meat dishes effectively means that there will be segments of the working class that will not go there, simply cause they can't eat there. Veganism is a very pragmatic way to ensure the largest potential for participation.

As for the general problem of ideology creep, that's not just an issue in student groups. Wherever you put people together with only a vague similarity in ideology but no clear idea of what to do you'll see ideology creep. The solution is not to exclude students, the solution is to organize more efficiently.

[Q]

Just curious, are there certain categories of people communist parties won't accept as members? (Obviously this is likely to differ by tendency)

I'm talking about people such as:

1) People with obvious physical disabilities
2) People with obvious mental disabilities
3) Homeless people
4) Prostitutes
5) People with a serious and real criminal record (e.g. rape/murder against civilians, not just anti-authority "political crime", which many communists no doubt have committed too)
6) Very rich people (e.g. billionnaries)
7) Drug/alcohol addicts

A common definition of membership is that a member is one who joins the Party, accepting its rules and programme, works in a Party organisation and regularly pays dues.

The only controversy in your list would be the billionaires. If one builds a working class party, one could amend the definition to only be applicable to working class people, e.g. the people that are depend for their survival on the wage fund. Many unions likewise draw a line at excluding people from membership if they can hire and fire other workers. Personally, I think for such non-working class members there should be at the very least a special form of membership. But I'm no big pusher of excluding them, because if they followed the definition as per above, they would effectively betray their class interestsand submit themselves to the project of working class self-emancipation.

People which are known criminals should of course be under watch. Although bourgeois law does not matter to us, there are obvious red lines that can't be crossed.

[Q]

@ Welshy, why does being addicted to drugs make one incapable of being a genuine revolutionary for the working class!?

They shouldn't by definition, in my view. However, if theyŕe dysfunctional because of their addiction and, for example, show up at meetings under influence, then they should be expelled if they're not open for help to get rid of their addiction. Likewise political meetings should be devoid of alcohol as well (in some countries it is considered normal to drink at meetings, which is absurd in my view).

[Luc]

I can see a problem with addiction, bearing in mind addiction being different from use.

On a happier note: I was listening to Seven Nation Army by white stripes and Q your avatar was in beat with it:lol:

[Queercommie Girl]

People which are known criminals should of course be under watch. Although bourgeois law does not matter to us, there are obvious red lines that can't be crossed.


Agree. Socialist law is different from bourgeois law, but socialists cannot permit harm to come to innocent ordinary civilians. We don't really care if the person has committed a "political crime" against the bourgeois government, squatted somewhere illegally, or even stole some stuff from the local supermarket. But when ordinary people are harmed by such a person, then it becomes a completely different matter.

[Queercommie Girl]

I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed join. Just because someone is physically disabled doesn't mean that they can't contribute to the organization.

Note really sure on this. I guess it depends on what type of mental disability. I mean I would love to yes in almost any case but if the disability is severe then one would have to wonder how productive they can be as a member of an organization.


Sometimes physical disability can make one just as unproductive as mental disability.



I'm not sure, depends on the crime maybe?


As I said, I meant serious anti-civilian crimes like rape and murder or severe physical assault against an innocent ordinary person. I'm not talking about illegal squatting, smashing windows on corporate buildings or stealing a pair of shorts from Marks and Spencer.



No communist organization should allow the very rich to be members. I mean how does someone get that rich with out being a capitalist or at least a member of the upper crust of the petty bourgeoisie?


What if the said person is willing to literally give up his wealth to become a communist? Wasn't Engels from a relatively rich background?

[Queercommie Girl]

I don't really see what tendency has to do with it.


One example: Most Maoists and Stalinists would not allow prostitutes to join a communist party, unless it is explicitly for the purpose of reforming the prostitute. Prostitution is considered to be a bourgeois vice.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

As I understand the organization that Miles is in, the Worker's Party, only accepts people who are members of the working class. In "Defense of Marxism" Trotsky proposed that the US SWP make it a membership requirement that each member recruit at least two other member a month or be expelled/ This sounds harsh but the idea wasn't to be sentimental but to build a working class movement.

Up until the 1950s at least the CPUSA expelled members for being homosexual. Those days are long past. The CPUSA does expel any member who calls for the violent overthrow of the US government. I know someone who was kicked out of the CP for doing anti-facist work. The local branch thought this would alienate the Democrats, whom they were trying to cultivate.

Communist groups have been known to expel members with very unconventional religious or spiritual ideas. The CPUSA expelled a member a few years go for advocating the believe that Laura Wilder Ingalls, a writer who wrote the "Little House On The Prairie" series, was God. This person was on RevLeft for a time, I believe.

The ICC expelled a member for being a Freemason and trying to recruit ICC members. There's an odd story about this on Libcom.

Physical or mental challenges should not be a problem.People can and should be expelled from organisations for "ickiness", making unwanted advances on another member, racism, etc. and failure to agree with the goals or philosophy of the organisation.

[unfriendly]

How does veganism raise the bar? If anything, it lowers it. Muslims and Judaists can't eat pork, Hindus can't eat beef, and vegetarians and vegans can't eat any meat. Someone with no such dietary restrictions can eat vegan food just fine though.
Having a left-wing social space or event that has only meat dishes effectively means that there will be segments of the working class that will not go there, simply cause they can't eat there. Veganism is a very pragmatic way to ensure the largest potential for participation.

As for the general problem of ideology creep, that's not just an issue in student groups. Wherever you put people together with only a vague similarity in ideology but no clear idea of what to do you'll see ideology creep. The solution is not to exclude students, the solution is to organize more efficiently.

Veganism can function as an enormous privilege, particularly the tendency of white western college vegans to shame people who aren't vegan or to hold veganism as a morally superior stance. Whereas with halal and kosher it's not some prescriptive thing they demand everyone do, veganism can function that way sometimes, and it IS an issue.

That said I don't think that excluding vegans through any sort of top-down structure is a meaningful step towards addressing that. That's a problem of privileged people being ridiculous and taking up too much space which has been an issue in this very thread; it's fucking pervasive and inescapable (and I hope I'm not doing it :S).

That said, my personal experience is with white, western anarchists and I therefore have more experience with cliques than with formal organizations. Those cliques have some pretty effective means of excluding people based on pretty much anything, though.

[Nox]

One example: Most Maoists and Stalinists would not allow prostitutes to join a communist party, unless it is explicitly for the purpose of reforming the prostitute. Prostitution is considered to be a bourgeois vice.

I must say, I've never heard of that one before.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

I don't think we should expect there to be another Fredrick Engels out there. What ever progressive elements that exist with in the capitalist class at the time of Marx and Engels are pretty much gone. Plus why should a communist organization put their trust in an individual to act in a way that is very much against their class interests? If you think they should, then that's pretty idealist.

First off, where did you get this theroy from? You've provided no justification at all for the idea that the "progressive elements in the bourgeious class have gone" and aren't ever going to return.

Secondly, if I'm not mistaken the progressive elements of the bourgeious class are usually said to be those relating to the removal of fedualism. Since Engles was a communist, he wasn't directly influenced by bourgeious critques of fedualism and I don't find any realistic way in which you can say bourgeious removal of fedualism meant that lots of bourgeious people would become communists or acceptable to communists?

Thirdly, Engles was an individual. More i mportant than any weird tendancy towards progressism in the bourgeious, in his case, was that he seemed like a more or less decent dude who felt sorry for people in poverty. This lead him to communism. I don't think being "bourgeious" precludes having those feelings, although it is less likely it would result in an intrest in communism nowadays.

Lastly, I don't get your reasoning as to why people can't disobey "class intrests". Presumably this idea hinges on the fact that people are likely to follow their own intrests, but presumably again falls apart as soon as you consider that working class people are allowed to join communist parties on account of their support being in their class intrest and therefore reliable, when the mere fact anyone joins a communist party demonstrates that they were willing to act in spite of their own intrests, since it is unlikely spending lots of time working for the revolution will have more pay off than working hard in school or whatever.

[Red And Black Sabot]

I.W.W dosen't accept students, i don't get why

That's absolutely not true. The IWW does accept students.

According to the IWW Constitution, under Article II (Membership), Section 1(b):
No unemployed or retired worker, no working-class student, apprentice, home- maker, prisoner or unwaged volunteer on a project initiated by the IWW or any subordinate body thereof shall be excluded from membership on the grounds that s/he is not currently receiving wages.

There have been several IWW student groups. Lots of my local FWs are students and most students I know are workers. The few who live off of loans are often workers in the making.
Besides. The IWW is a union, not a party. The only folks who are barred from membership as per our constitution is the employing class. If you have the power to higher or fire and if you sign someone's pay check you're not welcome in the IWW... but really that's just about it.

[Queercommie Girl]

I must say, I've never heard of that one before.

At the very least I'm pretty certain that most Maoists do not support sex work. Some Stalinists may be different.

[Smyg]

I'm slightly confused as to who'd actually support sex work, as it is today at least.

[StoneFrog]

How does veganism raise the bar? If anything, it lowers it. Muslims and Judaists can't eat pork, Hindus can't eat beef, and vegetarians and vegans can't eat any meat. Someone with no such dietary restrictions can eat vegan food just fine though.
Having a left-wing social space or event that has only meat dishes effectively means that there will be segments of the working class that will not go there, simply cause they can't eat there. Veganism is a very pragmatic way to ensure the largest potential for participation.

As for the general problem of ideology creep, that's not just an issue in student groups. Wherever you put people together with only a vague similarity in ideology but no clear idea of what to do you'll see ideology creep. The solution is not to exclude students, the solution is to organize more efficiently.

The thing is not their dietary restrictions, its that the ideological principles of veganism which has become detrimental to the movement. Instead of working on the worker movement they working on trying to convince people to become a vegan. Where i use to live i looked into working with some anarchist organizations i heard about, one of which i looked at their list of events. The events planned in the past 6 months and future events where 2/3 vegan oriented.

I used veganism as an example, since i have seen a few groups become entrenched with it.

Students are more affected by these idealogical creeps, im not saying its just students that are affected. I agree, i don't want students to be outcast from political groups, its just there is a risk when you start to get an overwhelming student membership. Not only for ideological creeps, but that workers will feel that the group is less serious, or don't really know what they're on about since its just a bunch of students.

[Queercommie Girl]

I'm slightly confused as to who'd actually support sex work, as it is today at least.

I meant intrinsically. While pretty much all Marxists point out the bad shape contemporary sex work is in and its exploitative nature, many Marxists do not fundamentally oppose sex work. They would say that even in a socialist society there would still be people doing "something like sex work". Furthermore, these socialists also support trade unionism to some extent among sex workers to better protect their own rights. For these people yes sex workers are heavily oppressed but so are many other layers of the working class, and there is no essential difference here between the two. Most Maoists on the other hand want nothing of this. They believe after the revolution all kinds of sex work should be eradicated. There is no place for "sex work" intrinsically in a communist society.

[Nox]

I'm slightly confused as to who'd actually support sex work, as it is today at least.

I don't support sex work, but I don't look down on prostitutes.

Most of them are poor and out of desperation resort to sex work to provide for themselves & their families.

[Schizophrenia]

2) People with obvious mental disabilities

As a guy with a mental disability, I find myself able to contribute to society. Though I am currently unemployed, I believe I would be able to put in time for a party.

[Welshy]

First off, where did you get this theroy from? You've provided no justification at all for the idea that the "progressive elements in the bourgeious class have gone" and aren't ever going to return.


I think this should be pretty obvious given the outright attack everything gain the working class has made global that is being lead by the capitalists right now. I mean the most progressive members right now are like Warren Buffet, Bill Gates and maybe George Soros and they only supports thing that would maybe improve the lives of the working class a bit, but more importantly they support things that would maintain their privilege as capitalists.



Secondly, if I'm not mistaken the progressive elements of the bourgeious class are usually said to be those relating to the removal of fedualism. Since Engles was a communist, he wasn't directly influenced by bourgeious critques of fedualism and I don't find any realistic way in which you can say bourgeious removal of fedualism meant that lots of bourgeious people would become communists or acceptable to communists?

Look I hate to break it to you but it's no longer the 19th Century. Feudalism doesn't exist in any meaningful form any more. And the capitalists living today had no role in bringing about some progressive bourgeois democracy like the capitalists of the 18th-19th century and they seem to just as happy with working with a dictator as long as they are able to make a profit. Also I don't necessarily understand what you are getting at with the sentence I bolded above.

But if you chose to continue to live in the past, I would like to ask you to give me examples of the capitalist class today acting as a progressive force.



Thirdly, Engles was an individual. More i mportant than any weird tendancy towards progressism in the bourgeious, in his case, was that he seemed like a more or less decent dude who felt sorry for people in poverty. This lead him to communism. I don't think being "bourgeious" precludes having those feelings, although it is less likely it would result in an intrest in communism nowadays.

Cool. You are falling into the anti-communist (not that I think you are anti-communist) trap of thinking that opposition to capitalist class means the same as thinking that all capitalists are evil people who just wants to kill poor people for sport. Of course capitalists can feel bad for the working class. I mean Warren Buffet is an example. However their solutions to these problems are ones that maintain there class privileges. To be honest I think Engels was an exception.



Lastly, I don't get your reasoning as to why people can't disobey "class intrests". Presumably this idea hinges on the fact that people are likely to follow their own intrests, but presumably again falls apart as soon as you consider that working class people are allowed to join communist parties on account of their support being in their class intrest and therefore reliable, when the mere fact anyone joins a communist party demonstrates that they were willing to act in spite of their own intrests, since it is unlikely spending lots of time working for the revolution will have more pay off than working hard in school or whatever.

Sure some people can disobey their class interest for some amount of time, just like some people can act altruistically for a while. But can you really expect or rely on people to consistently disobey their class interests? And as for the working class people who join communist organizations working against their own interests, it's not the McCarthy era anymore. People don't get blacklisted for being apart of communist organizations any more. But if you are talking periods during one would be blacklisted or arrested, then I have a question for you. Around the same time (during the early 20th century specifically) people who were active in unions would face oppression, so do you think they were going against their self interests being active in struggle for better working conditions, pay and etc. ?

[graymouser]

Welshy: You do realize that there are still trust-fund kids who act as de facto class traitors more or less in the mold of Engels, right? More than one organization has had supporters or members with large bank accounts who have financed a good chunk of their work. They do not indicate that the bourgeois class is itself inherently progressive, but that there are individuals who are born into that class who have a conscience about it and side with the working class.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Don't be captain save a ho (http://redlightchicago.wordpress.com/how-to-be-an-ally-to-sex-workers/)


I think one of the biggest issues with some CP's is the more 'stalinist' they get, the more homophobic they get. I was talking to a Portugese communist that called himself a stalinist who i called out on using the word 'fag' in a derogatory and obviously homophobic manner. he responded by saying(paraphrasing) "homosexuality is a disease that should be treated in clinics like Cuba did" and then i said "Cuba admitted that was a massive mistake. Also, there are homosexual workers." and he said "well, cuba was under pressure from the capitalists, also, there are workers with cancer too"

he then called me a liberal trotskyite who believed bourgeois lies. and defended himself by saying that marx and lenin never talked about sexual orientation. all i can say is wow. that guy should be expelled.

[wunderbar]

why does being addicted to drugs make one incapable of being a genuine revolutionary for the working class!?

Because addiction is complete physical and psychological dependence to a given substance. Addiction is beyond casual and habitual use, where a person might use a substance to feel good. When a person is addicted, things are hellish whenever they're not under the effect of a substance. Do you really think most people who are addicted are capable of putting effort into political work?

[Welshy]

Welshy: You do realize that there are still trust-fund kids who act as de facto class traitors more or less in the mold of Engels, right? More than one organization has had supporters or members with large bank accounts who have financed a good chunk of their work. They do not indicate that the bourgeois class is itself inherently progressive, but that there are individuals who are born into that class who have a conscience about it and side with the working class.

And how many of them stay communists? Also I should have specified that I was referring to people who are actively capitalists, not just people whose parents are capitalists. If a person's parents are capitalists and then they follow in their parents foot steps, then I think their loyalty should be question if not expelled from their organization. But if they become working class or even lower level petty bourgeoisie, then they should be allowed into communist organizations (though everyone knows by now how I feel about p. bourgeoisie being members of workers organizations).

But I can tell you from personal experience, since my grandfather was/is a capitalist (he's retired now but still holds power in some universities and owns two farms), that a capitalist view of the world is hard for children of capitalists to get rid of. My mother (her father was the capitalist) is in a lot a ways anti-working class in her politics and the same with most of her siblings. In fact the only progressive element in my mom's family is my grandpa's sister who went into the working class after leaving the family farm. I don't know maybe persona experience has made me more cynical about the class I come from and the capitalist class.

[EvilRedGuy]

That's absolutely not true. The IWW does accept students.

According to the IWW Constitution, under Article II (Membership), Section 1(b):
No unemployed or retired worker, no working-class student, apprentice, home- maker, prisoner or unwaged volunteer on a project initiated by the IWW or any subordinate body thereof shall be excluded from membership on the grounds that s/he is not currently receiving wages.

There have been several IWW student groups. Lots of my local FWs are students and most students I know are workers. The few who live off of loans are often workers in the making.
Besides. The IWW is a union, not a party. The only folks who are barred from membership as per our constitution is the employing class. If you have the power to higher or fire and if you sign someone's pay check you're not welcome in the IWW... but really that's just about it.

Ohh shit i read that wrong, i thought it was those who weren't allowed in the party not those who wouldn't get excluded. Nevermind. I have a hard time with english. :p

And you are right I.W.W is a union, but the same rules applies to a party. Or should apply in this case.

[Nox]

I think one of the biggest issues with some CP's is the more 'stalinist' they get, the more homophobic they get. I was talking to a Portugese communist that called himself a stalinist who i called out on using the word 'fag' in a derogatory and obviously homophobic manner. he responded by saying(paraphrasing) "homosexuality is a disease that should be treated in clinics like Cuba did" and then i said "Cuba admitted that was a massive mistake. Also, there are homosexual workers." and he said "well, cuba was under pressure from the capitalists, also, there are workers with cancer too"

he then called me a liberal trotskyite who believed bourgeois lies. and defended himself by saying that marx and lenin never talked about sexual orientation. all i can say is wow. that guy should be expelled.

He sounds like a fucking idiot who doesn't even know what Marxism-Leninism is.

[RedHal]

In a high revolution situation, I don't want drugged up/alchoholics in situations where security can be compromised! Either kick the habit or be left out!

[Luc]

In a high revolution situation, I don't want drugged up/alchoholics in situations where security can be compromised! Either kick the habit or be left out!

well hopefully there are no CPs in high communism;)

[Rodrigo]

1) People with obvious physical disabilities

Accepted.


2) People with obvious mental disabilities

Accepted.


3) Homeless people

Accepted, of course.


4) Prostitutes

Accepted.


5) People with a serious and real criminal record (e.g. rape/murder against civilians, not just anti-authority "political crime", which many communists no doubt have committed too)

A person with a serious criminal records wouldn't be in any political party, or anywhere, except in prison or, if not yet, trying not to be caught by the police. :p No time for politics, yep?


6) Very rich people (e.g. billionnaries)

Depend on. Linus Torvalds is a millionaire (dunno if billionaire) but I'm sure he's not capitalist/bourgeois and getting rich was not his aim in life, but these people are veeery rare exceptions. Or people who won a millionaire or billionaire prize; these are usually petty-bourgeois workers who just want a better life --> How do we get better lives in capitalism? Possessing more money! And some people are influenced by this ill behavior of wanting to have even more and more money, eventually becoming a capitalist. And this event can be stopped, because the petty-bourgeoisie has "one foot in the bourgeoisie", but also "another foot in the proletariat".

Capitalist/bourgeois people are, of course, not accepted. But I doubt they would want to enter a communist party (there's no logic in it), at least while in capitalist society. In the communist period it would be to undermine and sabotage the party from inside; for me that's a serious crime, not only to the party and its members but also to the working people, who see communism as their savior and see the party as an ensurer they will get to communism or continue to live in it.


7) Drug/alcohol addicts

Accepted, but the addictions are not encouraged.

[Rusty Shackleford]

He sounds like a fucking idiot who doesn't even know what Marxism-Leninism is.


seriously. i hate internet-only communists. they say the stupidest shit sometimes. I couldn't imagine his party, if he was a member of one, would actually condone that shit.

[Dumb]

Two thoughts on membership of the rich in revolutionary parties...

#1. Would the policy differ with regards to somebody who'd amassed their wealth and was at that point effectively retired, therefore no longer making money off of wage labor? (And how about people with inherited wealth?) I'm not trotting these cases out as necessarily good things, but they strike me as being somewhat different from a case of an individual currently engaged in exploitation of wage labor.

#2. Given how many working-class people regularly vote and act against their own class interest, I don't see why we can't expect it to work the other way around every once in a while too...

[khad]

"The third category consists of a great many brutes in high positions, distinguished neither by their cleverness nor their energy, while enjoying riches, influence, power, and high positions by virtue of their rank. These must be exploited in every possible way; they must be implicated and embroiled in our affairs, their dirty secrets must be ferreted out, and they must be transformed into slaves. Their power, influence, and connections, their wealth and their energy, will form an inexhaustible treasure and a precious help in all our undertakings."

[Rising Sun]

Christ on a wooden crutch!

Do you people not understand the importance of a disciplined organization? You don't let lumpen trash (IE. Homeless, hookers, drug addicts and hardened criminals) into your organization! They are not to be trusted!!

What are the chances of a billionaire joining even a remotely progressive organization in the first place? Slim to none. If someone from a privileged background wanted to join, than that's fine.

Out of that list, I say that only people with physical disabilities should be allowed and even that should be elaborated further.

Those with mental disabilities don't need any more stress and problems than they all ready have. For their sake, they should not be accepted into membership.

Just my thoughts though!

[EvilRedGuy]

Christ on a wooden crutch!

Do you people not understand the importance of a disciplined organization? You don't let lumpen trash (IE. Homeless, hookers, drug addicts and hardened criminals) into your organization! They are not to be trusted!!

What are the chances of a billionaire joining even a remotely progressive organization in the first place? Slim to none. If someone from a privileged background wanted to join, than that's fine.

Out of that list, I say that only people with physical disabilities should be allowed and even that should be elaborated further.

Those with mental disabilities don't need any more stress and problems than they all ready have. For their sake, they should not be accepted into membership.

Just my thoughts though!


Shut the fuck up. And don't call people for trash, also don't decide whether we mental illed can or not, we'll do whatever the fuck we want to, same for physical disabled.

PS- Your avatar, seriously?

[Queercommie Girl]

Christ on a wooden crutch!

Do you people not understand the importance of a disciplined organization? You don't let lumpen trash (IE. Homeless, hookers, drug addicts and hardened criminals) into your organization! They are not to be trusted!!


I wouldn't put "homeless people" into the same category as criminals and drug addicts. You could argue that the latter have an intrinsic moral failing which means they can't be allowed into Marxist organisations, but frankly many homeless people are rather decent people who are homeless due to no fault of their own. In today's economic climate, a worker could lose his/her job and unable to get another one, and if his/her family can't support him/her, and the state can't provide sufficient welfare, then he/she could end up homeless and on the street. In other words many homeless people could just be very normal and ordinary folks. Whose fault is that, the homeless person's or the fault of the capitalist system?

[EvilRedGuy]

True, but same could be said for drug addicts, they are not criminals, they are workers who has fallen for the lumpen-proletariat's trick and become uncontrollable, which is done on purpose to make people keep buying drugs. They can't survive without it because they had no knowledge with the drug and how it could get them addicted.


Addiction and Homeless =/= Lumpen-proletariat.

[bastart]

Just curious, are there certain categories of people communist parties won't accept as members? (Obviously this is likely to differ by tendency)
6) Very rich people (e.g. billionnaries)


DSK was in Communist Party (Union of Communist Students before that) before he went to become IMF managing director

[Rising Sun]

Shut the fuck up. And don't call people for trash,

I will not and I will call these people what they are.


also don't decide whether we mental illed can or not, we'll do whatever the fuck we want to, same for physical disabled.

Mental illness can hold back organizations. I have seen it before. it effects the ability to carry out work and will most likely make you less reliable. For that reason, organizations should be wary of those with mental problems.

As I said before, physical disabilities are a whole different issue.



PS- Your avatar, seriously?

Yes seriously. Go cry about it you have nothing of importance to say at all


I wouldn't put "homeless people" into the same category as criminals and drug addicts.

Why not they are prone to becoming criminals and drug addicts. Same thing. Lumpen elements of society.


Whose fault is that, the homeless person's or the fault of the capitalist system?

Whose fault is that, the drug addict or the fault of the state for pumping drugs into communities?

My point is that it doesn't matter. Drug addicts develop individualistic mentalities where they look for their own interest and will fuck over whoever to get what they want and the homeless are prone to the same path.

If there are genuine disagreements with this then you've never known anyone lumpen and you've probably never left your parents basement...

There is a reason why Marx looked down on the lumpen elements and the peasantry. Not that I'm an explicit Marxist, just saying.

[Per Levy]

Christ on a wooden crutch!

Do you people not understand the importance of a disciplined organization? You don't let lumpen trash (IE. Homeless, hookers, drug addicts and hardened criminals) into your organization! They are not to be trusted!!

aha, so workers who happen to have the wrong job(prostitute) and/or cant afford a roof over their head(homeless) and/or are caught in an addiction cant be trusted...


What are the chances of a billionaire joining even a remotely progressive organization in the first place? Slim to none. If someone from a privileged background wanted to join, than that's fine.

...but wealthy people can of course, this really shows on wich side you are on.


Just my thoughts though!

with you avatar and your comments so far im guessing you'll be restricted soon(at least), just my thoughts though...

[Rising Sun]

aha, so workers who happen to have the wrong job(prostitute) and/or cant afford a roof over their head(homeless) and/or are caught in an addiction cant be trusted...

Yep. They absolutely cannot under in any circumstances. This is organizationally speak though




...but wealthy people can of course, this really shows on wich side you are on.

Obscenely wealthy people dont join Leftist parties or organizations. However, upper strata's of the middle class can and do. I would prefer them over drug addicts any day.



with you avatar and your comments so far im guessing you'll be restricted soon(at least), just my thoughts though...

I highly doubt it but hey, thanks for playing anyways!

[Queercommie Girl]

Yep. They absolutely cannot under in any circumstances. This is organizationally speak though


Why can't homeless people be trusted? I'm not talking about drug addicts, drug dealers or criminals, just regular ordinary people who only became homeless due to unemployment.

The idea that the upper middle class should be more favoured by a revolutionary organisation than unemployed workers is completely ridiculous.

[Rising Sun]

Why can't homeless people be trusted? I'm not talking about drug addicts, drug dealers or criminals, just regular ordinary people who only became homeless due to unemployment.

The idea that the upper middle class should be more favoured by a revolutionary organisation than unemployed workers is completely ridiculous.

I've already explained this. If you are homeless (and most likely unemployed) you really don't have to means to get anything done. Meanwhile, a more privileged person would have more to give and would be able to carry out more tasks for the organization. I dont see how this is so hard to comprehend

A healthy dose of pragmatism never hurt anyone...

[Rising Sun]

The idea that the upper middle class should be more favoured by a revolutionary organisation than unemployed workers is completely ridiculous.

I never expressed any reservations about unemployed workers. However the down-and-out homeless and unemployed are simply not reliable.

Do not put words in my mouth its dishonest of you

[Queercommie Girl]

Why not they are prone to becoming criminals and drug addicts. Same thing. Lumpen elements of society.


Many homeless people aren't criminals or drug addicts at all.

Do you realise that potentially every ordinary worker (including yourself) could become homeless if he/she becomes unemployed and can't find another job?



Whose fault is that, the drug addict or the fault of the state for pumping drugs into communities?


This comparison is pure BS. You are essentially blaming the unemployed for their inability to hold onto a job rather than the capitalist system. :rolleyes:



My point is that it doesn't matter. Drug addicts develop individualistic mentalities where they look for their own interest and will fuck over whoever to get what they want and the homeless are prone to the same path.

If there are genuine disagreements with this then you've never known anyone lumpen and you've probably never left your parents basement...


And you have a problem with reading. I was talking about homeless people, not drug addicts. Many homeless people don't become drug addicts.



There is a reason why Marx looked down on the lumpen elements and the peasantry. Not that I'm an explicit Marxist, just saying.

I'm more of a Leninist than "original Marxist". Lenin called for the alliance of the workers and the peasantry. He didn't look down on the peasantry. I'm also a semi-Maoist and Maoism is quite pro-peasantry.

[Queercommie Girl]

Mental illness can hold back organizations. I have seen it before. it effects the ability to carry out work and will most likely make you less reliable. For that reason, organizations should be wary of those with mental problems.

As I said before, physical disabilities are a whole different issue.


It depends on what kind of "mental illness" you are talking about. I'd rather have a member who has a mild form of mental illness than someone who has lost both legs and blind at the same time. Some forms of physical disabilities can make a person much more unproductive than mild mental illness.

Some people consider transgenderism to be a form of "mental illness" as well. Does this mean trans people shouldn't be accepted as party members?

[Seresan]

I don't really see what tendency has to do with it.


So... you think a Trotskyist would allow a vocal stalinist in their midst?

[Queercommie Girl]

I've already explained this. If you are homeless (and most likely unemployed) you really don't have to means to get anything done. Meanwhile, a more privileged person would have more to give and would be able to carry out more tasks for the organization. I dont see how this is so hard to comprehend

A healthy dose of pragmatism never hurt anyone...

Most real-life contemporary Marxist parties have many unemployed members. Many of these would have become homeless if it wasn't for the welfare state that exists in many Western countries.

Unemployed members can contribute a lot to an organisation. A person from a wealthier background may be able to donate more money, but a revolutionary organisation is not a business. People from privileged backgrounds are generally speaking unreliable as communists, due to their socio-economic position in society.

[Queercommie Girl]

I never expressed any reservations about unemployed workers. However the down-and-out homeless and unemployed are simply not reliable.

Do not put words in my mouth its dishonest of you

There is no reason why a homeless person must be intrinsically unreliable at all. It depends a lot on the nature of his/her homelessness, whether it's only due to unemployment or some other factors like alcohol/substance abuse, or perhaps illness. If it's the former I don't see why they would be untrustworthy at all. While the ability to financially contribute to an organisation is obviously very limited for such people, they could potentially still contribute in many other ways.

Homeless people have nothing to lose and therefore are not attached to the capitalist system. "They have nothing to lose but their own chains". On the other hand, people from wealthy and privileged backgrounds, despite their ability to donate a lot of money, are generally not trustworthy ideologically speaking due to their class background.

However, it's also true that an ordinary employed worker can generally contribute more than someone who is unemployed.

[Rising Sun]

People from privileged backgrounds are generally speaking unreliable as communists, due to their socio-economic position in society.

Tell that to Che Guevara, Fidel Castro, VI. Lenin, and Mao Tse Tung. All of which were Communists that led the greatest revolutions of the 20th century. all of which from petit-bourgeois backgrounds.

Don't get me that shit about people from privileged backgrounds are more unreliable than hookers, drug addicts, and hardened criminals.

You can keep filling your brain with fantasies of rounding up lumpen scum for your "People's Army" but when reality finally sets in, you'll realize that the people you are idealizing are so far gone that it's not even worth it.

Nowhere have I come across someone so deluded, so unrealistic, so childish!

As for "Many homeless people don't become drug addicts."

They become drunkards! Addicted to alcohol! Do you know how common alcoholism is with the homeless? Do you even know anything at all?!

I mean, seriously?!? Do you know any homeless? Any drug addicts or dealers? Or do you just live in your head?

[unfriendly]

Who's their avatar?

[o well this is ok I guess]

Well my biggest issue with most Anarchist(not just reserved for anarchist) groups is that they're too overpopulated by students. Then you start to see integration of non socialist agendas, like veganism into the group. This doesn't help unite workers but create a bigger barrier. You start to loose the worker struggle, because all these other things have been stuck onto it. Also often students burn themselves out before really doing anything, become too amped up, but when they don't see immediate result they bail.

I say this because its from my own age group, so im weary of too much student involvement in the movement. Really, I'd think part of the problem is how students are approached and viewed.
We seem to carry a lot of baggage from the whole "New Left" fad during the 60s and 70's. You know, where various philosophers and sociologists and such would praise students as the new revolutionary class and the replacement of labour organizers. However, I do not recall an instance of the students ever questioning the very nature of the student or school, but simply accepting the conclusions of those who pushed the idea of the New Left. Certainly they've had a political impact, but anyone here who certainly say that students have not in any capacity replaced the workers as a revolutionary class.
But then contrast this with the students of the 60's in say, France. By certain accounts we are told that the French student is more or less loathed, so much so that the SI took it upon themselves to distribute flyers on just how much students disgusted them (to great popularity, I might add). Yet, no American student group has had such a significant social and political impact than the French students.
Certainly, I think there is reason to consider the possibility that it is not students in themselves that are impotent, but students as they currently are conceived.

[Queercommie Girl]

I wouldn't call students "impotent" at all, I think that line is ridiculous. I'm from a student background. I think studentism does have its role to play, but obviously is not primary and cannot supplant labour activism, or even peasant activism in some cases.

If the only reason a particular tendency or organisation is rejected is because there are lots of students in the organisation, then frankly this kind of rejection is not a very rational one.

[o well this is ok I guess]

I wouldn't call students "impotent" at all, I think that line is ridiculous. I'm from a student background. I think studentism does have its role to play, but obviously is not primary and cannot supplant labour activism, or even peasant activism in some cases.

If the only reason a particular tendency or organisation is rejected is because there are lots of students in the organisation, then frankly this kind of rejection is not a very rational one. I'm not saying that students are impotent, but that students brought up only knowing student protest and "studentism" have some obvious shortcomings.
It is not a question of who to replace and how, but of how to make the best of ourselves.
And you're very right in saying deny a person membership based on them being a student isn't a very reasonable decision.

[Queercommie Girl]

I'm not saying that students are impotent, but that students brought up only knowing student protest and "studentism" have some obvious shortcomings.

It is not a question of who to replace and how, but of how to make the best of ourselves.

And you're very right in saying deny a person membership based on them being a student isn't a very reasonable decision.


The key is to recognise the centrality of labour activism, due to materialistic/economic factors.

The problem is not with students or "student culture", but with idealism. (As opposed to historical materialism) Frankly often idealistic workers can be even worse.

By idealism I don't just mean religious ideas. Nazism is atheist but still a form of idealism, and Nazism actually attracted quite a lot of workers.

[The]

No communist organization should allow the very rich to be members. I mean how does someone get that rich with out being a capitalist or at least a member of the upper crust of the petty bourgeoisie?





Would you not let Elliot Rosewater in? Would you not let Buddah?

[o well this is ok I guess]

The key is to recognise the centrality of labour activism, due to materialistic/economic factors.

The problem is not with students or "student culture", but with idealism. (As opposed to historical materialism) Frankly often idealistic workers can be even worse.

By idealism I don't just mean religious ideas. Nazism is atheist but still a form of idealism, and Nazism actually attracted quite a lot of workers. By idealism, I assume mean our "utopianism" and "romanticism" .
Could you you perhaps elaborate on your position?

[Queercommie Girl]

By idealism, you of course mean our "utopianism" and "romanticism".
Could you you perhaps elaborate on your position?

Actually utopianism and romanticism are not necessarily idealist, though of course many forms of them are. Of course, even relatively progressive forms of utopianism are very much inadequate by themselves, but materialistic utopianism is at least not explicitly reactionary, and frankly culturally speaking I'd rather have materialistic romantic utopianism (e.g. technocratic sci-fi style utopianism) than idealistic religion-based pragmatism.

Short answer to your question:

Marx once said: Humans must first feed and clothe themselves, before they can engage in any kind of art or philosophy. Idealists are those who deny this universal truth. They either follow some kind of non-material God, or a metaphysical Ultimate Reality, or a mathematical Platonic Realm, or some kind of romanticist view of human history and the "nation" which is not grounded in historical materialism.

The working class is central because of its economic role in the capitalist system in the materialistic sense. Idealists (of all classes and of all kinds) never realise this so they never hit the mark.

[Geiseric]

I think anybody should be able to join a communist organisation if they pledge to uphold its laws and abide by democratic centralism.

[o well this is ok I guess]

Actually utopianism and romanticism are not necessarily idealist, though of course many forms of them are. Of course, even relatively progressive forms of utopianism are very much inadequate by themselves, but materialistic utopianism is at least not explicitly reactionary, and frankly culturally speaking I'd rather have materialistic romantic utopianism (e.g. technocratic sci-fi style utopianism) than idealistic religion-based pragmatism.

Short answer to your question:

Marx once said: Humans must first feed and clothe themselves, before they can engage in any kind of art or philosophy. Idealists are those who deny this universal truth. They either follow some kind of non-material God, or a metaphysical Ultimate Reality, or a mathematical Platonic Realm, or some kind of romanticist view of human history and the "nation" which is not grounded in historical materialism.

The working class is central because of its economic role in the capitalist system in the materialistic sense. Idealists (of all classes) never realise this so they never hit the mark. Forgive me, then. I forget where I am sometimes, and that around here idealism isn't so haphazardly used.
Though I'm sure we can both agree with Marx on that proposition, but there seems to be some difficulty in such a position. It seems odd to call the problem with students to be idealism, when you'll hardly find a student professing himself to be a Neoplatonist or saying to his friends "you see, when that cat walks behind that wall, it ceases to exist in my mind", just as you'll hardly find a Marxist who is also a dogmatic Hegelian (and would be quite perplexed to find such a person).
So the problem of idealism and students still remains unclear to me. By idealism do you mean the problems of nation and religion, or do you mean existentialism and phenomenology?

[Queercommie Girl]

Forgive me, then. I forget where I am sometimes, and that around here idealism isn't so haphazardly used.
Though I'm sure we can both agree with Marx on that proposition, but there seems to be some difficulty in such a position. It seems odd to call the problem with students to be idealism, when you'll hardly find a student professing himself to be a Neoplatonist or saying to his friends "you see, when that cat walks behind that wall, it ceases to exist in my mind", just as you'll hardly find a Marxist who is also a dogmatic Hegelian (and would be quite perplexed to find such a person).
So the problem of idealism and students still remains unclear to me. By idealism do you mean the problems of nation and religion, or do you mean existentialism and phenomenology?

We live in the 21st century now, so unless one is from Saudi Arabia, or the Bible Belt in the US, the majority of contemporary idealists are no longer so explicit. Religious idealism is the most explicit and primitive form of idealism. Neo-Platonic idealism is more sophisticated and less explicit but even this few people engage in nowadays. Most idealists these days are much more implicit, sophisticated and subtle. A popular form of idealism among left-wing students and intellectuals is post-modernism, which is against the basic principles of historical materialism. Among right-leaning and right-wing people romanticist nationalist ideas are quite common, which is also a form of historical idealism.

[Meridian]

Every human must be assimilated into the Party, except gingers.

[Queercommie Girl]

Tell that to Che Guevara, Fidel Castro, VI. Lenin, and Mao Tse Tung. All of which were Communists that led the greatest revolutions of the 20th century. all of which from petit-bourgeois backgrounds.


Are you kidding? "petit-bourgeois" is hardly privileged. I'm from a petit-bourgeois background myself. Mao Zedong's family for instance, was not wealthy at all.



Don't get me that shit about people from privileged backgrounds are more unreliable than hookers, drug addicts, and hardened criminals.


Who said anything about drug addicts and criminals? I'm actually generally quite anti-criminal.

BTW putting prostitutes into the same category as them is also somewhat discriminatory. Many contemporary socialists actually support sex work and sex workers' unions. Even "traditionalists" like Mao didn't discriminate against them, but only sought to reform them through non-offensive means.



You can keep filling your brain with fantasies of rounding up lumpen scum for your "People's Army" but when reality finally sets in, you'll realize that the people you are idealizing are so far gone that it's not even worth it.


Fantasy? Hardly. Have you even read any of Mao Zedong's texts, for instance? Mao explicitly said that in a revolutionary warfare situation, often layers of the "lumpen" can be utilised as soldiers.



Nowhere have I come across someone so deluded, so unrealistic, so childish!


I think you will find that the vast majority of RevLeft is generally on my side, and indeed many members are even more "radical" than I am on this issue. :rolleyes:

Also, it's pretty clear that you are the one who is being "childish" for resorting to personal attacks when your arguments are no longer sound.



As for "Many homeless people don't become drug addicts."

They become drunkards! Addicted to alcohol! Do you know how common alcoholism is with the homeless? Do you even know anything at all?!

I mean, seriously?!? Do you know any homeless? Any drug addicts or dealers? Or do you just live in your head?


Alcoholism is pretty common among many workers too. I even had a friend from school before who became a "petit-alcoholic" even in his teenage years. So what's your point?

Go and fuck yourself, you piece of shit. Your kind of condenscending elitist BS is getting quite annoying. Go and establish your fantasy "communist party" made up of privileged wealthy hacks.

[Devrim]

Go and fuck yourself, you piece of shit.

Isn't this the person who only last week was complaining about people throwing abuse at her? Pot. Kettle. Black.

Devrim

[Queercommie Girl]

Isn't this the person who only last week was complaining about people throwing abuse at her? Pot. Kettle. Black.

Devrim


Actually you are completely mistaken. My complaint was originally on the point that the particular left communist organisation in that thread didn't mention LGBT rights enough. I was actually the one who first started using explicit swear words. (I'm not actually completely against the use of explicit swear words in the context of RevLeft intrinsically speaking, and that was never my primary complaint anywhere)

Anyway even here in this thread, you should see that he is the one who is being rude to me first.

But you are making an irrelevant point anyway, either say something relevant to the thread or get out.

[Devrim]

Actually you are completely mistaken. My complaint was originally on the point that the particular left communist organisation in that thread didn't mention LGBT rights enough. I was actually the one who first started using explicit swear words.

Yes, I know,...and then accused people of being abusive. It is pretty hypocritical really.


Anyway even here in this thread, you should see that he is the one who is being rude to me first.

Does it matter who does it first?


But you are making an irrelevant point anyway, either say something relevant to the thread or get out.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Devrim

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

In This Thread: Socialists defend the rich, the bourgeoisie and the petty-bourgeoisie and attack homeless people.

[Queercommie Girl]

Yes, I know,...and then accused people of being abusive. It is pretty hypocritical really.


"Abusive" in the sense of being insensitive to LGBT issues and more specifically trans issues, not just swearing.

Is "polite transphobia" in any sense more acceptable than "rude transphobia"? :rolleyes:

Who is more "abusive": someone who is "politely transphobic" or someone who is responding to "polite transphobia" with swearing? If you can't get this right in your head then you are pretty dense indeed.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

The answer is that most leftist groups today will take anyone who will tow their line and sell their newspapers. The question of class is abandoned in favor of classless "political line." The materialist dictum that "being determines consciousness" is thrown out the window.

Marx and Engels fought against this brand of socialism during their political lives:

The guiding principle of the IWMA was "The emancipation of the working classes must be conquered by the working classes themselves."

Marx specifically rejected official leadership positions time and time again.

"'Victor Le Lubez … asked if Karl Marx would suggest the name of someone to speak on behalf of the German Workers.’ Marx himself was far too bourgeois to be eligible so he recommended the emigre tailor Johann Georg Eccarius…"” – Karl Marx: A Life. Francis Wheen.

“Citizen Marx has just been mentioned; he has perfectly understood the importance of this first congress, where there should be only working-class delegates; therefor he refused the delegateship he was offered in the General Council.” – Geneva Congress of the First International, James Carter.

“Lawrence moved that Marx be President for the ensuing twelve months; Carter seconded that nomination. Marx proposed Odger: he, Marx, thought himself incapacitated because he was a head worker and not a hand worker.” – The General Council of the First International: Minutes.
Marx and Engels argued against members of the petty-bourgeoisie leading workers.

"The International Working Men's Association, based upon the principle of the abolition of classes, cannot admit any middle class Sections.'” - Engels, Resolutions of the Hague Congress of the International Working Men's Association

"... the I.W.M.A., according to the General Rules, is to consist exclusively of 'workingmen's societies' .... the General Council was some months ago precluded from recognizing a Slavonian section exclusively composed of students ... the General Council recommends that in future there be admitted no new American section of which two-thirds at least do not consist of wage laborers." - Resolution of the IWMA on the Split in the U.S. Federation

"If people of this kind from other classes join the proletarian movement, the first condition is that they should not bring any remnants of bourgeois, petty-bourgeois, etc., prejudices with them but should whole-heartedly adopt the proletarian point of view. But these gentlemen, as has been proved, are stuffed and crammed with bourgeois and petty-bourgeois ideas. In such a petty-bourgeois country as Germany these ideas certainly have their own justification. But only outside the Social-Democratic Workers’ Party. If these gentlemen form themselves into a Social-Democratic Petty-Bourgeois Party they have a perfect right to do so; one could then negotiate with them, form a bloc according to circumstances, etc. But in a workers’ party they are an adulterating element. If reasons exist for tolerating them there for the moment, it is also a duty only to tolerate them, to allow them no influence in the Party leadership and to remain aware that a break with them is only a matter of time. The time, moreover, seems to have come." - Engels
And others after them continued to fight for this principle:"How long it will be until the Socialists realize the folly and inconsistency of preaching to the workers that the emancipation of the working class must be the act of the workers themselves, and yet presenting to those workers the sight of every important position in the party occupied by men not of the working class." – James Connolly

[unfriendly]

In This Thread: Socialists defend the rich, the bourgeoisie and the petty-bourgeoisie and attack homeless people.

Also ITT: Rising Sun repeatedly calls me and all homeless people, drug addicts, and prostitutes "lumpen trash" and actively argues in favor of discrimination against us. Queercommie Girl calls Rising Sun a piece of shit and THEN the language police show up.

[Queercommie Girl]

Oh the irony of a self-proclaimed "left communist" taking the side of a bourgeois apologist...

[thriller]

The SP-USA says yes to all of of the people the OP mentioned. Can't speak for any other organizations.

[Rising Sun]

Also ITT: Rising Sun repeatedly calls me and all homeless people, drug addicts, and prostitutes "lumpen trash" and actively argues in favor of discrimination against us.

First of all, you aren't even homeless anymore.

You said it yourself, jackass and I have the PM's to show it. There is no "us". You are a person with mental disabilities, or so you say. Find me where I called those with mental disabilities "lumpen trash".

Here's a hint, junior. I DIDN'T!

Stop fucking lumping yourself in with these people and trying to play the victim.

You were homeless now you are not. You have friends that are drug addicts and hookers. They are lumpen trash for that specific reason alone.

It's unfortunate that you were once homeless and people you still care about are homeless. However, to think that this automatically makes people a base for revolution just because they "have nothing to lose but their chains" is laughable at best.

cry about it.

[EvilRedGuy]

Rising Sun is a Rising Fascist!

[Rising Sun]

Rising Sun is a Rising Fascist!

You clearly don't even know what that means.

[EvilRedGuy]

I know what Fascism means!


:rolleyes::lol:

PS- Not gonna continue this useless dog fight against you, you will get restricted soon anyway.

[Rising Sun]

PS- Not gonna continue this useless dog fight against you, you will get restricted soon anyway.

I highly doubt that I will

I haven't violated any rules so far.

I haven't gotten any warnings or infractions so why do people keep saying this??

Wishful thinking.....

[Queercommie Girl]

First of all, you aren't even homeless anymore.

You said it yourself, jackass and I have the PM's to show it. There is no "us". You are a person with mental disabilities, or so you say. Find me where I called those with mental disabilities "lumpen trash".

Here's a hint, junior. I DIDN'T!

Stop fucking lumping yourself in with these people and trying to play the victim.

You were homeless now you are not. You have friends that are drug addicts and hookers. They are lumpen trash for that specific reason alone.

It's unfortunate that you were once homeless and people you still care about are homeless. However, to think that this automatically makes people a base for revolution just because they "have nothing to lose but their chains" is laughable at best.

cry about it.

Seriously, personal attacks etc. aside, you have a problem in the sense of blindly lumping all sorts of people together into a meaningless grey lump simply based on some rather superficial "shared attributes".

Unless you are a moral nihilist, you cannot neglect the difference between someone who is in a dire situation primarily due to subjective factors and someone who is in a dire situation primarily due to objective factors.

The "objective factor" of capitalism and imperialism is such that, as the Bible once puts it, it makes real princes into tramps and real tramps into princes.

Your crude pragmatism simply looks at the "results" of one's social situation without any attempt to understand and analyse the objective cause.

I do actually think some people here on RevLeft aren't anti-criminal (criminal in the real sense of the word, not anti-bourgeois "political crime") enough. I believe in socialist law. But socialist law doesn't punish regular homeless people or prostitutes or drug addicts. A socialist state guarantees employment for everyone, so there won't be any regular homeless people due to unemployment at all; sex work may indeed be legitimate intrinsically (though I still think this point is debatable); drug addicts should be helped and rehabilitated, not punished.

Socialist activism today is an imperfect embryo of the future socialist society in a sense, and judging by your understanding of how this "embryo" should be like, your socialist society is not one I'd want to live in.

[Rising Sun]

Seriously, personal attacks etc. aside, you have a problem in the sense of blindly lumping all sorts of people together into a meaningless grey lump simply based on some rather superficial "shared attributes".

Not really I'm not so vague with who I am talking about. Infact, I'm quite clear.


Unless you are a moral nihilist, you cannot neglect the difference between someone who is in a dire situation primarily due to subjective factors and someone who is in a dire situation primarily due to objective factors.

I'm not neglecting anything.

I just don't have to be sympathetic and I don't have to operate under the facade that these people would in the very least be sympathetic to revolutionary politics.


Your crude pragmatism simply looks at the "results" of one's social situation without any attempt to understand and analyse the objective cause.

except that I do understand the objective cause. It really doesn't matter. Once someone gets locked into that lifestyle, good luck breaking them out of their individualism.



I believe in socialist law. But socialist law doesn't punish regular homeless people or prostitutes or drug addicts.

Oh really? The Checka had no problem crushing these lower elements.


sex work may indeed be legitimate intrinsically (though I still think this point is debatable); drug addicts should be helped and rehabilitated, not punished.

Sex work is never legitimate and good luck breaking a good amount of drug addicts and dealers out of their former lifestyle.


and judging by your understanding of how this "embryo" should be like, your socialist society is not one I'd want to live in.

Judging by your lack of understanding for these people who you idealize and
are so sympathetic to, I wouldn't want to live in your hedonistic socialist utopia either.

You probably have never known anyone who is a drug dealer or anything like that.

I actually do and they turned out to be reactionary, individualistic, and completely wrapped up in their own means to reap more profit.

But hey keep dreaming. HA!

[Smyg]

I highly doubt that I will

I haven't violated any rules so far.

I haven't gotten any warnings or infractions so why do people keep saying this??

Wishful thinking.....

You're mildly annoying. :rolleyes:

[Queercommie Girl]

I just don't have to be sympathetic and I don't have to operate under the facade that these people would in the very least be sympathetic to revolutionary politics.


It's not primarily about being sympathetic you idiot. You simply have no analysis of society.



Oh really? The Checka had no problem crushing these lower elements.
The Cheka didn't really crush anyone who was not explicitly counter-revolutionary. Get your Marxist history right.



You probably have never known anyone who is a drug dealer or anything like that.
I'm not sympathetic to people like drug dealers, but to be frank with you, as problematic as these drug dealers are, they are still better than the ultra-rich capitalist imperialist scum that rule our world today.

The one who steals a fishing hook is punished; The one who steals an entire country is made into a feudal lord. - ancient Chinese proverb

[Queercommie Girl]

Does it matter who does it first?


If someone slaps you on the face, do you just "turn the other cheek"?

[Queercommie Girl]

You're mildly annoying. :rolleyes:

To be frank, that's an understatement.

[scarletghoul]

Anyone who agrees with the partys aims and principles, and is willing to contribute practically or theoretically or both to the party should join. obviously, capitalists are not very likely to fit this, though if there is an exception like engels then yeah ..
as for homeless people, drug addicts, disabled people, mentally ill people, etc,, yes of course they should be welcomed into our movement. people suffering mental illness have made great contributions to the liberation of the proletariat (Huey Newton and Louis Althusser are obvious examples). In fact, Huey P Newton was a bipolar drug addict with a criminal record.. as for physically disabled, i dont get why thats even a question lol.

Fact is, the system fucks people up and treats most of us like shit. You're not gonna get an army of perfectly formed immaculate level headed revolutionaries coming down from the sky and saving the world. The system will be overthrown by the seeds that it sows, and we seeds are diseased, homeless, and generally imperfect. people like Rising Sun obviously don't understand the term "arise, the wretched of the earth." They would prefer it to say "arise the wretched of the earth, but not too wretched lol we have standards you know"..

[Queercommie Girl]

people like Rising Sun obviously don't understand the term "arise, the wretched of the earth." They would prefer it to say "arise the wretched of the earth, but not too wretched lol we have standards you know"..

Not only that, but he is literally praising the role of the "privileged" (not just "not too wretched") in the socialist movement and blindly put all the "lumpen elements" he could think of into a single formless mass. I wouldn't be surprised if he were just a troll rather than a "real member".

Your point about Huey Newton and Louis Althusser is brilliant as well.

[Rising Sun]

wow alright this is hilarious now


In fact, Huey P Newton was a bipolar drug addict with a criminal record.. as for physically disabled, i dont get why thats even a question lol.


"The trafficking of heroin is one of the greatest dissipating factors among the poor, not only Blacks but among Chicanos, Puerto Ricans, and other poor people. It is an evil that has to be driven out of our community. It is obvious that police forces have not seriously attempted to crush this growing evil, but have in many ways encouraged it, by either a lackadaisical attitude or even, in some cases, participation in the trafficking. I have called upon the new mayor of this city to join us in this regard because I think that as the elected political leader of the city, it is his responsibility to begin to set the tone for change. It is just intolerable that heroin traffic exists. It can be cleared up and cleaned out of this city, and we certainly intend to put out ever energy we have to do that. I believe good will triumph over evil--and I believe that the people themselves will run the dope dealers out of the community." - Huey Newton, 1977
"The most escapist and self-destructive activity for us and one of the most profitable for the capitalist, and therefore the most encouraged by him, is drug addiction."

Huey became a drug addict in the late seventies when his party went to shit and mental disabilities? I guess a speech impediment means a mental disability. Hardly

Shows how much you know but hey nice effort!



people like Rising Sun obviously don't understand the term "arise, the wretched of the earth." They would prefer it to say "arise the wretched of the earth, but not too wretched lol we have standards you know"..

cute


You're mildly annoying. :rolleyes:

To be frank, that's an understatement.

keep whining crybabies

[Rising Sun]

Not only that, but he is literally praising the role of the "privileged" (not just "not too wretched") in the socialist movement

I'm looking at objective reality you nimrod


and blindly put all the "lumpen elements" he could think of into a single formless mass. I wouldn't be surprised if he were just a troll rather than a "real member".

Yeah god forbid I must be some troll instead of a principled leftist

Christ western liberalism has rotted your mind

[scarletghoul]

Huey became a drug addict in the late seventies when his party went to shit and mental disabilities? I guess a speech impediment means a mental disability. HardlyHe was bipolar. And in general he was a pretty strange guy, people used to call him 'crazy huey' when he was growing up etc.. it wouldnt surprise me if he was on the autistic spectrum.

And lol no shit of course the panthers, including huey, realised that drug addiction was a terrible thing. doesnt change the fact that a drug addict contributed a huge amount to the peoples liberation struggle. while its true that his dependency became much worse from the late 70s, he was still taking drugs before then. David Hilliard states in his biography of huey - "I don't remember there ever being a time in Huey's life when he wasn't in some way abusing drugs or alcohol"

[o well this is ok I guess]

We live in the 21st century now, so unless one is from Saudi Arabia, or the Bible Belt in the US, the majority of contemporary idealists are no longer so explicit. Religious idealism is the most explicit and primitive form of idealism. Neo-Platonic idealism is more sophisticated and less explicit but even this few people engage in nowadays. Most idealists these days are much more implicit, sophisticated and subtle. A popular form of idealism among left-wing students and intellectuals is post-modernism, which is against the basic principles of historical materialism. Among right-leaning and right-wing people romanticist nationalist ideas are quite common, which is also a form of historical idealism. Ah, so our young are wasted on the likes of Foucault and Lacan.

But I still do not quite understand. I haven't received an explanation on what elements of classical idealism persist in postmodernism, you seem to instead speak of postmodernism as some sort of Trotsky bogeyman. Could you perhaps elaborate further?

[Catmatic Leftist]

Sorry, I'm just curious, who's the person in RisingSun's avatar?

[Devrim]

Sorry, I'm just curious, who's the person in RisingSun's avatar?

It is Assad, President of Syria

Devrim

[black magick hustla]

@ Welshy, why does being addicted to drugs make one incapable of being a genuine revolutionary for the working class!?

honestly right now it doesnt matter but my understanding is some groups had statutes against consuming drugs because it was a legal liability, especi9ally when the state is looking for any legal reason to crush a group

[Luc]

Sorry, I'm just curious, who's the person in RisingSun's avatar?

I was going to ask that same question because I didn't think any leftist would like that bastard so I wasn't sure who he was.:lol:

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

I think this should be pretty obvious given the outright attack everything gain the working class has made global that is being lead by the capitalists right now. I mean the most progressive members right now are like Warren Buffet, Bill Gates and maybe George Soros and they only supports thing that would maybe improve the lives of the working class a bit, but more importantly they support things that would maintain their privilege as capitalists.


You have argued that Buffet support progressive demands because it benefits them as capitalists, which implies, since you stated the bourgeious was progressive in the past, and is not so now, that you feel that in the past, capitalists introduced the welfare state without considering how it would benefit them



Look I hate to break it to you but it's no longer the 19th Century. Feudalism doesn't exist in any meaningful form any more. And the capitalists living today had no role in bringing about some progressive bourgeois democracy like the capitalists of the 18th-19th century and they seem to just as happy with working with a dictator as long as they are able to make a profit. Also I don't necessarily understand what you are getting at with the sentence I bolded above.

But if you chose to continue to live in the past, I would like to ask you to give me examples of the capitalist class today acting as a progressive force.


My argument was that the progressive elements of the bourgeious was unlikely to intoduce people like Engles to become communists. This was to stand against your argument that bourgeious people cannot be functional communists because the bourgeious was no longer progressive. I did not understand why, in the time of engles conversion to communism, when the bourgeious wasn't enacting progressive reforms at all, but removing the hangovers of fedualism, would the progressive inclinations of the bourgeious at that time of lead to engles being a good communist?



Cool. You are falling into the anti-communist (not that I think you are anti-communist) trap of thinking that opposition to capitalist class means the same as thinking that all capitalists are evil people who just wants to kill poor people for sport. Of course capitalists can feel bad for the working class. I mean Warren Buffet is an example. However their solutions to these problems are ones that maintain there class privileges. To be honest I think Engels was an exception.


I didn't think you was claiming that you felt the bourgeious were nasty people, I thought you were ignoring their capacity to act as individuals, and thus, hold positions against their personal or "class" interest. There isn't any reason why bourgeious people, as individuals, must always come up with solutions to problems that mantain their privileges; they are capable of holding positions against their own interest.

I also noted that it was ironic that you mentioned this, because I often feel that joining a communist party, even if it is in the class interest, is against a person's individual self intrest - why are working class people allowed to act against their own intrest in a very obvious way by spending hours and hours on revolutionary shit that will likely never benefit them, but bourgeious people are not even allowed to morally identify with a political position that would harm them, if enacted?


Sure some people can disobey their class interest for some amount of time, just like some people can act altruistically for a while. But can you really expect or rely on people to consistently disobey their class interests? And as for the working class people who join communist organizations working against their own interests, it's not the McCarthy era anymore. People don't get blacklisted for being apart of communist organizations any more. But if you are talking periods during one would be blacklisted or arrested, then I have a question for you. Around the same time (during the early 20th century specifically) people who were active in unions would face oppression, so do you think they were going against their self interests being active in struggle for better working conditions, pay and etc. ?[/QUOTE]


Well, as a side note, people disobey their class intrests all the time in favour of their percieved individual intrests. After all, most working class people are not clamouring to join a union and benefit themselves and their class - most of them, seeing the unlikelyhood of gaining anything that way, have pragmatically focused on their own personal intrests.

To your question, I honestly don't know. Can we expect working class people to act for long against their individual intrests and put in long hours selling papers when they could be working? Mabye, mabye not. Certainly in a revolutionary period, the bourgeious could be more dangerous? And there are plenty of good arguments to be made for their prohbitation, for example the need to avoid the unavoidable class mindset and norms of even the most well meaning bourgeious people inflitrating a working class group? But certainly I don't think saying that bourgeious people cannot convincingly act against their own CLASS intrest in a time where revolution is nowhere near the agenda (not even self intrest) isn't to convincing?

[Lucretia]

Ah, so our young are wasted on the likes of Foucault and Lacan.

But I still do not quite understand. I haven't received an explanation on what elements of classical idealism persist in postmodernism, you seem to instead speak of postmodernism as some sort of Trotsky bogeyman. Could you perhaps elaborate further?

If I may, I think the idealist element is the postmodern fiction that categories necessarily construct rather than reflect the world around us. Capitalism, to the postmodernist, is purely a mental construct. Most postmodernists, properly speaking, refuse to acknowledge that this construct is an abstraction of patterned and therefore predictable social processes (postmodernists often think of society as just a construct imposed on formless chaos also), that have very real and negative consequences for us and our world.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

wow alright this is hilarious now





Huey became a drug addict in the late seventies when his party went to shit and mental disabilities? I guess a speech impediment means a mental disability. Hardly

Shows how much you know but hey nice effort!




cute




keep whining crybabies


I'm looking at objective reality you nimrod



Yeah god forbid I must be some troll instead of a principled leftist

Christ western liberalism has rotted your mind


http://arch.413chan.net/Its_time_to_stop_posting-(n1292610492025).jpg

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

Actually you are completely mistaken. My complaint was originally on the point that the particular left communist organisation in that thread didn't mention LGBT rights enough. I was actually the one who first started using explicit swear words. (I'm not actually completely against the use of explicit swear words in the context of RevLeft intrinsically speaking, and that was never my primary complaint anywhere)

Anyway even here in this thread, you should see that he is the one who is being rude to me first.

But you are making an irrelevant point anyway, either say something relevant to the thread or get out.

Did you complain about the abuse you received after you made the original compliant though?

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Just curious, are there certain categories of people communist parties won't accept as members? (Obviously this is likely to differ by tendency) I'm talking about people such as:
I know the only ones I'd have a problem with would be someone who has committed rape or murder, and billionaires. A worker who won money in the lottery? I could accept them, provided they were willing to fund revolutionary activities.