Socialism views still positive in the US

[RGacky3]

http://www.people-press.org/2011/12/28/little-change-in-publics-response-to-capitalism-socialism/?src=prc-headline

Very interesting poll.

Keep in mind in 2008 they had these polls and socialism was pretty high (given all the history and social pressures), but then we had 3 years of INTENSE propeganda, so what is the outcome?

49% of people 18-29 had a positive view of socialism, beating 46% which had a positive view of capitalism.

Views on socialism and capitalism are still largely class based with poor (less thant $30,000) viewing it positively at 43% while the middle and upper middle classes view it positive at 27 and 22% (they don't include the real upper class).

Whats also ironic is that young people also tend to have a more postitive view of libertarianism (which is as broad a term as socialism).

Obviously the HUGE winner here is progressive, which makes sense, progressive has no negative connotations at all, and older people, who may be considered socialists, would be comfortable calling themselves progressive.

[RGacky3]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/29/young-people-socialism_n_1175218.html?ref=business

Don't watch the video at the bottom of the article if you don't want to pull your hair out.

[Comrade Hill]

They have a more positive view on social democracy, not socialism.

[RGacky3]

Theres no way of knowing that, socialism means different things (from stalinism to social democracy) to different people.

I think based on the knowlege available to the common American, its still Amazing.

Also one of the rising movements in the US is the cooperative movement.

[roy]

I think the survey would have produced different results had the word "socialism" been replaced with "communism", seeing as though they're interchangable. That is, unless you're referring to "socialism in one state", which itself is a huge bone of contention.

Most of the people surveyed probably equate socialism with free healthcare, education, etc... Basically Scandinavia, which is obviously not socialist.

I could be completely wrong, but I doubt the American public would have responded so well to the c-word, which is the same thing.

[Renegade Saint]

I think the survey would have produced different results had the word "socialism" been replaced with "communism", seeing as though they're interchangable. That is, unless you're referring to "socialism in one state", which itself is a huge bone of contention.

Most of the people surveyed probably equate socialism with free healthcare, education, etc... Basically Scandinavia, which is obviously not socialist.

I could be completely wrong, but I doubt the American public would have responded so well to the c-word, which is the same thing.
11% of the American public supports going communist. Communism has a higher approval rating than congress.

I wouldn't unreservedly endorse "Communism" in a poll either though, since it usually refers to Marxism-Leninism, and I'd rather live in a bourgeois democracy than that.

[workersadvocate]

11% of the American public supports going communist. Communism has a higher approval rating than congress.

I wouldn't unreservedly endorse "Communism" in a poll either though, since it usually refers to Marxism-Leninism, and I'd rather live in a bourgeois democracy than that.

Ha! Be sure to tell the ISO about how you feel and your preference for bourgeois democracy at their next meeting.
This is what happens which when your groups' composition is mainly based in the bosses' 33%. This guy must have just signed the membership card without bothering to read the most basic summary of ISO's politics. Perhaps just assumed it was "the real Democrats" club.

[RGacky3]

Ha! Be sure to tell the ISO about how you feel and your preference for bourgeois democracy at their next meeting.


I think most people would prefer bourgeois democracy to a party dictatorship any day.

[Franz Fanonipants]

I wouldn't unreservedly endorse "Communism" in a poll either though, since it usually refers to Marxism-Leninism, and I'd rather live in a bourgeois democracy than that.

haha what

[Franz Fanonipants]

I think most people would prefer bourgeois democracy to a party dictatorship any day.

if you use words to describe it, yes. sure.

[workersadvocate]

Ki
I think most people would prefer bourgeois democracy to a party dictatorship any day.

Versus a duopoly bourgeois dictatorship when 1 out of every 3 Americans is a class enemy and they bullshit about our 'freedom' (free to toe the line, work harder for less, politely conform to the oppressive social standards, act like some obnoxious bloodthirsty cowboy conquistadors when American imperialism goes to war or when shopping).

[#FF0000]

Theres no way of knowing that, socialism means different things (from stalinism to social democracy) to different people

No. To the vast majority of people it means "social democracy".

[RGacky3]

Versus a duopoly bourgeois dictatorship when 1 out of every 3 Americans is a class enemy and they bullshit about our 'freedom' (free to toe the line, work harder for less, politely conform to the oppressive social standards, act like some obnoxious bloodthirsty cowboy conquistadors when American imperialism goes to war or when shopping).

Ok, at least I don't get thrown to prison for posting here though. (I don't live in the US btw).


if you use words to describe it, yes. sure.

Which is exactly what "marxism-leninism" gets you.

[Comrade Hill]

I think most people would prefer bourgeois democracy to a party dictatorship any day.

A bourgeois democracy is a fansy name for a party dictatorship.

[Tim Cornelis]

I certainly prefer bourgeois democracy over Marxist-Leninism for the selfish reason I anticipate my survival rate to be significantly higher in a bourgeois democracy.

And most who hold positive views about socialism probably equate it with social capitalism (or what is often referred to as social democracy). I was watching show with Bill Maher and there were three guests one who said that "they [conservatives] are re-inventing the meaning of words to mean something completely different", by which he referred to socialism as a dictatorship, and continued "socialism is simply when you think government should run certain services like police, healthcare, fire fighters, etc." and a woman agreed by saying "yeah, markets are great but they don't always work, so we should not have competition in police, or healthcare, that's socialism".

I was baffled at the irony and stupidity.

EDIT:


Ha! Be sure to tell the ISO about how you feel and your preference for bourgeois democracy at their next meeting.
This is what happens which when your groups' composition is mainly based in the bosses' 33%. This guy must have just signed the membership card without bothering to read the most basic summary of ISO's politics. Perhaps just assumed it was "the real Democrats" club.


"Stalinism was actually the negation of socialism"

ISO 'most basic summary of ISO's politics', so how is preferring bourgeois democracy over Marxism-Leninism/Stalinism contrary to ISO's programme?

[RGacky3]

Thats why I'm very excited about the growth of the cooperative movement and the workers democracy movement, I don't care if they call it socialism or not, thats the socialism I'm fighting for.

[workersadvocate]

I certainly prefer bourgeois democracy over Marxist-Leninism for the selfish reason I anticipate my survival rate to be significantly higher in a bourgeois democracy.

And most who hold positive views about socialism probably equate it with social capitalism (or what is often referred to as social democracy). I was watching show with Bill Maher and there were three guests one who said that "they [conservatives] are re-inventing the meaning of words to mean something completely different", by which he referred to socialism as a dictatorship, and continued "socialism is simply when you think government should run certain services like police, healthcare, fire fighters, etc." and a woman agreed by saying "yeah, markets are great but they don't always work, so we should not have competition in police, or healthcare, that's socialism".

I was baffled at the irony and stupidity.

EDIT:




"Stalinism was actually the negation of socialism"

ISO 'most basic summary of ISO's politics', so how is preferring bourgeois democracy over Marxism-Leninism/Stalinism contrary to ISO's programme?

You're in the ISO, yet call Stalinism 'Marxism-Leninism'. What is so Marxist and Leninist about Stalinism?

[Tim Cornelis]

You're in the ISO, yet call Stalinism 'Marxism-Leninism'. What is so Marxist and Leninist about Stalinism?

I'm not in the ISO, Renegade Saint is.

The ISO is a Trotskyist organisation and therefore opposed to Marxism-Leninism. Marxism-Leninism is Stalinism.


A Marxist-Leninist is one who upholds the theories of Marx, Engels and Lenin alongside various other Revolutionaries. As a result they show direct opposition to the path of Trotskyist, Ultra-Leftist and Revisionist trends of Socialism.

Most Marxist-Leninists claim that the Soviet Union under Stalin's leadership represented a correct and successful practical implementation of the ideas of the scientific socialist ideas of Marx, Engels and Lenin in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). That does not mean; however, that Marxist-Leninists are completely uncritical of Stalin.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=46

Marxism-Leninism/Stalinism of course deviates both from Marxism and Leninism.

[Misanthrope]

Socialism is still believed to be bourgeois social democracy too.

[Renegade Saint]

Ha! Be sure to tell the ISO about how you feel and your preference for bourgeois democracy at their next meeting.
This is what happens which when your groups' composition is mainly based in the bosses' 33%. This guy must have just signed the membership card without bothering to read the most basic summary of ISO's politics. Perhaps just assumed it was "the real Democrats" club.
You seem to be unaware that the ISO holds that the current and former "Communist" states were/are state capitalist (as opposed to the traditional trotskyist view that they're deformed/degenerated workers' states) and thus did not/does not support them. So I'm pretty sure preferring bourgeois democracy to stalinism would go over just fine.

In future I'd suggest making sure you know what you're talking about before making yourself look like an ignorant fool.


Edit:To get back on topic I'd say this is very good news. Even if a many/most of these people think that 'Socialism' is merely strong social democracy is shows they're not being cowed by the relentless fear-mongering around the word. With most of the people I encounter whose views are best described as 'social democratic' their politics are pretty undeveloped and they can be brought towards socialism with a little more reading and political education.

[Black_Rose]

I certainly prefer bourgeois democracy over Marxist-Leninism for the selfish reason I anticipate my survival rate to be significantly higher in a bourgeois democracy.

And most who hold positive views about socialism probably equate it with social capitalism (or what is often referred to as social democracy). I was watching show with Bill Maher and there were three guests one who said that "they [conservatives] are re-inventing the meaning of words to mean something completely different", by which he referred to socialism as a dictatorship, and continued "socialism is simply when you think government should run certain services like police, healthcare, fire fighters, etc." and a woman agreed by saying "yeah, markets are great but they don't always work, so we should not have competition in police, or healthcare, that's socialism".


I believe you would survive in an M-L country such as East Germany. You might experience a lower standing of living in the DDR relative to the West if you are from an upper-middle class background in the US (like I was), but the socialism was able to provide a dignified standard of living for the majority of its citizens.

Just don't criticize it or try to leave. BTW, I endorse the DDR.

My advice for you if you live in an M-L regime: treat your fellow citizens (particularly the working class) with amity, benevolence, sympathy, and compassion, and sparingly judge them negatively; be wary of bourgeois and imperialist incursion of the culture and political apparatus; do not pursue a materially decadent life, but live a modest, materially content life; show reverence and venerate those who sacrificed to bring the Marxist-Leninist regime to fruition; and express deference and loyalty to authority, but only on the condition that they are virtuous (they sympathetically treat the working classes with mercy instead of contempt, and they are intolerant towards bourgeois sentiment) and to a lesser extent competent (I value loyalty more than technical competence in politics).

[NewLeft]

They have a more positive view on social democracy, not socialism.

I am not sure about that... I once surveyed people for a course and asked them general questions, most people agreed that workplaces shouldn't have bosses, that representative democracy wasn't true democracy and that they preferred a system closer to pure democracy over representative democracy..etc. Sure it wasn't scientific and nor do those questions define socialism, but it shows that young people support radical positions too...

[workersadvocate]

You seem to be unaware that the ISO holds that the current and former "Communist" states were/are state capitalist (as opposed to the traditional trotskyist view that they're deformed/degenerated workers' states) and thus did not/does not support them. So I'm pretty sure preferring bourgeois democracy to stalinism would go over just fine.

In future I'd suggest making sure you know what you're talking about before making yourself look like an ignorant fool.


Edit:To get back on topic I'd say this is very good news. Even if a many/most of these people think that 'Socialism' is merely strong social democracy is shows they're not being cowed by the relentless fear-mongering around the word. With most of the people I encounter whose views are best described as 'social democratic' their politics are pretty undeveloped and they can be brought towards socialism with a little more reading and political education.

The IS tendency also believes that that pre-1928, the Soviet Union was a workers' state.
Would you prefer bourgeois democracy to pre-1928 Soviet degenerated workers' state is what my point is. The reason I brought it up at all is just claiming the "communist countries" have nothing to do with Marxism and Leninism isn't completely true.
Also, let's not pretend that what is known as the Left hasn't been grossly deformed by its overwhelmingly petty bourgeois composition, outlook and relations (if any) with the working class. The middle class Left has a pragmatic interest in historical revisionism and trying to opportunistically crawl up the ranks of bourgeoisified social democracy or even the US Democratic Party. What strikes me most is that regardless of their ideological tendency, the middle class left has given up the ghost. Clearly, the liberation of humanity will come only from proletarian revolution and self-emancipation of the working class.
It isn't accidental that the middle class left prefers bourgeios democracy, corporatist capitalism, and will seek out for themselves a cozy place in the new gilded age nightmare if we foolishly follow them despite the obvious antagonistic class interests. Beware those who have decent prospects for themselves under this system as small business owners, adminstrators, coordinators, sellout politicians and intellectual apologists.
Been there, done that, the middle class left has had its chance, and we've suffered enormously because of relying of them.

[Renegade Saint]

The IS tendency also believes that that pre-1928, the Soviet Union was a workers' state.
Would you prefer bourgeois democracy to pre-1928 Soviet degenerated workers' state is what my point is. The reason I brought it up at all is just claiming the "communist countries" have nothing to do with Marxism and Leninism isn't completely true.
Also, let's not pretend that what is known as the Left hasn't been grossly deformed by its overwhelmingly petty bourgeois composition, outlook and relations (if any) with the working class. The middle class Left has a pragmatic interest in historical revisionism and trying to opportunistically crawl up the ranks of bourgeoisified social democracy or even the US Democratic Party. What strikes me most is that regardless of their ideological tendency, the middle class left has given up the ghost. Clearly, the liberation of humanity will come only from proletarian revolution and self-emancipation of the working class.
It isn't accidental that the middle class left prefers bourgeios democracy, corporatist capitalism, and will seek out for themselves a cozy place in the new gilded age nightmare if we foolishly follow them despite the obvious antagonistic class interests. Beware those who have decent prospects for themselves under this system as small business owners, adminstrators, coordinators, sellout politicians and intellectual apologists.
Been there, done that, the middle class left has had its chance, and we've suffered enormously because of relying of them.
Once again you show that you're ignorant of the ISO's politics. I wouldn't keep harping on that point if you hadn't been so abrasive (and wrong) in your first post.
Of the ISO members I've meant, the vast majority are not middle class (by which Marxists usually mean petty bourgeois, not just proletarians who are paid somewhat more). And neither am I.
Perhaps these things are true of the "middle class left", but they're demonstratively not true of the ISO. The ISO does not support the Democratic party in any capacity and considers any electoral political work a very low priority and subordinate to other work. We have no illusions about socialism coming through the ballot box (in a capitalist controlled state at least). "The Two Souls of Socialism" is one of the most influential modern works on our thought, and if you've read it you're aware that it fully embraces the original Marxist idea that the working classes have to free themselves, not rely on any benefactor or dear leader.

Sure, keep setting up straw men and knocking them down if that's what suits you. But you shouldn't talk shit about groups you know nothing about, because it just makes you look dumb.

[Comrade Hill]

I'm not in the ISO, Renegade Saint is.

The ISO is a Trotskyist organisation and therefore opposed to Marxism-Leninism. Marxism-Leninism is Stalinism.



http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=46

Marxism-Leninism/Stalinism of course deviates both from Marxism and Leninism.

The ideology STALINISM does not actually exist, it is just a term coined by revisionists as a propaganda technique to make M-Ls look bad to capitalists and other leftists.

And what makes you think you'd live longer under a bourgeois democracy, where for the most part its healthcare system is ranked WORSE than the one Cuba has?

[Renegade Saint]

The ideology STALINISM does not actually exist, it is just a term coined by revisionists as a propaganda technique to make M-Ls look bad to capitalists and other leftists.

And what makes you think you'd live longer under a bourgeois democracy, where for the most part its healthcare system is ranked WORSE than the one Cuba has?
It is a propaganda technique, and an effective one at that. But it's not being unfair to M-Lists; if believe the USSR under Stalin was on the right path toward socialism you get called a Stalinist.

He probably thinks he'd live longer because Marxist-Leninist regimes aren't known for their tolerance of divergent viewpoints, not because the healthcare is bad.

[Comrade Hill]

It is a propaganda technique, and an effective one at that. But it's not being unfair to M-Lists; if believe the USSR under Stalin was on the right path toward socialism you get called a Stalinist.

He probably thinks he'd live longer because Marxist-Leninist regimes aren't known for their tolerance of divergent viewpoints, not because the healthcare is bad.

It's still wrong to consider "Stalinism" an ideology. Stalin did not contribute anything that is specifically separate from the ideology of Marx and Lenin.

And, the amount of political prisoners in the Gulag camps was 30% of the population, and the longest prison term was 10 years, compared to places like the United States where people serve 300 year terms. Unless he was organizing some kind of violent counter revolutionary death squad, he would not "die" under a M-L dictatorship.

[RGacky3]

BTW it does'nt matter what type of Socialism the people had in mind in this poll.

Either way its pretty clear, its viewed as some sort of alternative to Capitalism, and its a word that has been demonized and slandered for decades in the United States, the implications of this are HUGE.

Its less important what they had in mind than the fact that they arn't buying the propeganda and they want an alternative.

[Tim Cornelis]

The ideology STALINISM does not actually exist, it is just a term coined by revisionists as a propaganda technique to make M-Ls look bad to capitalists and other leftists.

And what makes you think you'd live longer under a bourgeois democracy, where for the most part its healthcare system is ranked WORSE than the one Cuba has?

No, Marxism-Leninism is based on the interpretation of Marx and Lenin by Stalin, hence it is fair to call it Stalinism.

And a moderate health care quality does not mean I will die for being sick, it means the service is worse than in a country with good healthcare. And most countries with bourgeois democracy have better healthcare:


1. France
2 Italy
3 San Marino
4 Andorra
5 Malta
6 Singapore
7 Spain
8 Oman
9 Austria
10 Japan
11 Norway
12 Portugal
13 Monaco
14 Greece
15 Iceland
16 Luxembourg
17 Netherlands
18 United Kingdom
19 Ireland
20 Switzerland
21 Belgium
22 Colombia
23 Sweden
24 Cyprus
25 Germany
26 Saudi Arabia
27 United Arab Emirates
28 Israel
29 Morocco
30 Canada
31 Finland
32 Australia
33 Chile
34 Denmark
35 Dominica
36 Costa Rica
37 United States of America
38 Slovenia


I'm from the Netherlands, which is ranked 17 while Cuba is ranked 39. Would I want the Netherlands turn Marxist-Leninist? Hell no, I would lose my freedom of speech, freedom of association, etc. And in return we don't even get the abolition of wage labour and commodity production!

If Marxist-Leninists come to power in the Netherlands the chances are, say, fivefold bigger I will be killed by the state than in a bourgeois democracy.


It's still wrong to consider "Stalinism" an ideology. Stalin did not contribute anything that is specifically separate from the ideology of Marx and Lenin.

And, the amount of political prisoners in the Gulag camps was 30% of the population, and the longest prison term was 10 years, compared to places like the United States where people serve 300 year terms. Unless he was organizing some kind of violent counter revolutionary death squad, he would not "die" under a M-L dictatorship.

I'm not saying I will die for sure, but the odds will rise.

To my knowledge, the Bolsheviks also executed sympathizers of Makhno. And being locked up in a prison camp meant there is a ten percent chance of dying. ("R.J. Rummel's Lethal Politics: Soviet Genocide and Mass Murder Since 1917, surveying various estimates of attrition rates in Soviet camps, finds the typical camp death rate ranged between 10 and 30%. Taking the middle estimate (20%) and using basic arithmetic, one arrives at the 10% figure.")

So yeah, pretty high chance I would be killed by Stalin's goons.

So excuse me for wanting to not die.

[Robert]

And, the amount of political prisoners in the Gulag camps was 30% of the population, and the longest prison term was 10 years, compared to places like the United States where people serve 300 year terms.

You're funny.

Contrast the death rates among inmates with ten year sentences in the two penal systems.

[workersadvocate]

If the working class is rising in revolution, but they face you and perhaps 12-33 percent of the population of an imperialist country trying to stop their seizure and class governance because "I, me, mine...you workers can't tell me what to do", what should the working people do with you and such people? If you fought for the ruling class because you preferred their rule rather than a workers' republic, do you think working people are supposed to just turn the other cheek?
When you and other individualists pit themselves against the working class supermajority, what is to be done?

[Robert]

If the working class is rising in revolution, but they face you and perhaps 12-33 percent of the population of an imperialist country trying to stop their seizure and class governance

I guess that's directed at me (?)

12-33%? What an odd range ...

Anyway, if it's me and only 12 percent against "you", "you" can easily vote to establish a new constitution along the Cuban model or whatever model you want. You don't have to create a new gulag or start shooting all the counterrevolutionaries (though you will).

Class governance? I thought you were working for a class-less society.

[Tim Finnegan]

Thats why I'm very excited about the growth of the cooperative movement and the workers democracy movement, I don't care if they call it socialism or not, thats the socialism I'm fighting for.
Are you from 1902 or something?


The ideology STALINISM does not actually exist, it is just a term coined by revisionists as a propaganda technique to make M-Ls look bad to capitalists and other leftists.
You hardly need anyone else's help in that regard.

[Ocean Seal]

http://www.people-press.org/2011/12/28/little-change-in-publics-response-to-capitalism-socialism/?src=prc-headline

Very interesting poll.

Keep in mind in 2008 they had these polls and socialism was pretty high (given all the history and social pressures), but then we had 3 years of INTENSE propeganda, so what is the outcome?

49% of people 18-29 had a positive view of socialism, beating 46% which had a positive view of capitalism.

Views on socialism and capitalism are still largely class based with poor (less thant $30,000) viewing it positively at 43% while the middle and upper middle classes view it positive at 27 and 22% (they don't include the real upper class).

Whats also ironic is that young people also tend to have a more postitive view of libertarianism (which is as broad a term as socialism).

Obviously the HUGE winner here is progressive, which makes sense, progressive has no negative connotations at all, and older people, who may be considered socialists, would be comfortable calling themselves progressive.
Words are kind of meaningless. Socialist in the US means Keynesian. What I don't understand is why 51% of the country views getting free healthcare negatively or neutrally. Free healthcare shouldn't even be controversial. I'd like to live if something is out of my insurance policy. Why doesn't everyone?

[Tim Cornelis]

If the working class is rising in revolution, but they face you and perhaps 12-33 percent of the population of an imperialist country trying to stop their seizure and class governance because "I, me, mine...you workers can't tell me what to do", what should the working people do with you and such people? If you fought for the ruling class because you preferred their rule rather than a workers' republic, do you think working people are supposed to just turn the other cheek?
When you and other individualists pit themselves against the working class supermajority, what is to be done?

No one is arguing this. We are merely saying that we prefer bourgeois democracy over Marxist-Leninist dictatorship, I--at least--am not saying I will actively fight with the ruling class against a Marxist-Leninist takeover.

During such a working class revolution I will probably take their side and hope to strip the revolution of its totalitarian character.

And remember, I am are not saying that I expect to die because I will fight the new Marxist-Leninist regime, I anticipate that the odds of me being killed by the state will rise significantly after a Marxist-Leninist takeover because I would be a dissident and therefore seen as a threat to their power.


Words are kind of meaningless. Socialist in the US means Keynesian. What I don't understand is why 51% of the country views getting free healthcare negatively or neutrally. Free healthcare shouldn't even be controversial. I'd like to live if something is out of my insurance policy. Why doesn't everyone?

RGacky3 is trying to say that socialism is positively seen despite anti-socialist propaganda, which is surprising--in his opinion. That they probably think of social capitalism when they say socialism is irrelevant.

But it could also work in another way, when you are bombarded with the notion that social-democrats and social capitalists are evil socialists than the liberals who support then will also think more highly of socialism.

[Tim Finnegan]

No one is arguing this. We are merely saying that we prefer bourgeois democracy over Marxist-Leninist dictatorship, I--at least--am not saying I will actively fight with the ruling class against a Marxist-Leninist takeover.

During such a working class revolution I will probably take their side and hope to strip the revolution of its totalitarian character.
A contradiction in terms; for a "Marxist-Leninist takeover" and a genuine working class revolution could actually inhabit the same political space is impossible, and history fully bears this out.


RGacky3 is trying to say that socialism is positively seen despite anti-socialist propaganda, which is surprising--in his opinion. That they probably think of social capitalism when they say socialism is irrelevant.Why? Words are just words, they don't actually contain theoretical content in themselves. What people think of a give phoneme-cluster is significant only so far as what that cluster denotes is significant. The German workers who sat quietly by as the Spartacists were massacred, you'll remember, were by no means averse to "socialism", but it did Luxemburg and Liebknecht no good.

[workersadvocate]

No one is arguing this. We are merely saying that we prefer bourgeois democracy over Marxist-Leninist dictatorship, I--at least--am not saying I will actively fight with the ruling class against a Marxist-Leninist takeover.

During such a working class revolution I will probably take their side and hope to strip the revolution of its totalitarian character.

And remember, I am are not saying that I expect to die because I will fight the new Marxist-Leninist regime, I anticipate that the odds of me being killed by the state will rise significantly after a Marxist-Leninist takeover because I would be a dissident and therefore seen as a threat to their power.

You know that if working people rise in revolution, the ruling class will scream about the spectre of Communism (i.e., all the boogeyman red scare stuff that you prefer a bourgeois corporatist state over...the old bourgeois democracies are finished off now forever by a new corporatist arrangement fitting capitalism in decay). You will have to choose to side with the working class and its revolution, or actively or passively give support to corporatist capitalism against the workers' revolution. "I, me, mine" has a definite class meaning in the class struggle of today and tomorrow...it means defense of bourgeois private property and bourgeois rule, and it is the song of those who exploit and rule ( or wish they could) under capitalism. It constitutes a disgusting counter-revolt of self and the rule of capital over against the liberation of humanity. Who are these ingrate have-somes that act as if they are elite self-made sovereign unaccountable 'islands' that can dictate terms and insubordinate to the working class supermajority of humanity? Everything you have, everything you are, your very existence even was only through the collective toil of the working people of the world since the dawn of our species... your "I,me, mine" is not ultimately yours, and you are not a god on a throne looking down over humanity (no matter who you are). The working people of the world must storm the heavens, and what that really means is the full defeat of these egotistical greedy mortal men and women who think and act like they are mini Jehovahs whom the rest of "lesser" humanity has to put up with and bow before. We don't need them and their rule anymore. WE have been naught, WE shall be all. This is what the opponents of communism truly fear.

[Robert]

The working people of the world must storm the heavens, and what that really means is the full defeat of these egotistical greedy mortal men and women who think and act like they are mini Jehovahs whom the rest of "lesser" humanity has to put up with and bow before. We don't need them and their rule anymore. WE have been naught, WE shall be all. This is what the opponents of communism truly fear. I reckon you are a little scary!:lol:

But you don't sound much like a commie. You sound more like John Brown.

http://ts1.mm.bing.net/images/thumbnail.aspx?q=1536530720236&id=a1aedd49e804519ed2d5cec87e1d81cb

[#FF0000]

John Brown was fucking awesome though.

[Robert]

Oh, JB definitely kicked some ass and took a few names.

[Comrade Hill]

No, Marxism-Leninism is based on the interpretation of Marx and Lenin by Stalin, hence it is fair to call it Stalinism.

And a moderate health care quality does not mean I will die for being sick, it means the service is worse than in a country with good healthcare. And most countries with bourgeois democracy have better healthcare:


1. France
2 Italy
3 San Marino
4 Andorra
5 Malta
6 Singapore
7 Spain
8 Oman
9 Austria
10 Japan
11 Norway
12 Portugal
13 Monaco
14 Greece
15 Iceland
16 Luxembourg
17 Netherlands
18 United Kingdom
19 Ireland
20 Switzerland
21 Belgium
22 Colombia
23 Sweden
24 Cyprus
25 Germany
26 Saudi Arabia
27 United Arab Emirates
28 Israel
29 Morocco
30 Canada
31 Finland
32 Australia
33 Chile
34 Denmark
35 Dominica
36 Costa Rica
37 United States of America
38 Slovenia



Stalin's interpretation is not any DIFFERENT from Marx or Lenin's interpretation. But please continue on with your revisionist propaganda.

Why is the U.K rated higher than Cuba?

The U.K has 1 doctor per 600 people, compared to Cuba which has 1 doctor per 175 people.

And, Cuba's healthcare system was a lot more subsidized and well funded when the Soviet Union was around. When the Soviet Union collapsed private capitalism was restored, the U.S. went in and sanctioned Cuba's healthcare system to prevent Cuba from achieving higher standards of living and better quality healthcare.

And for most X-rays and surgeries, it costs around $50 to $60 in Cuba, and everyone has universal access to healthcare.




I'm from the Netherlands, which is ranked 17 while Cuba is ranked 39. Would I want the Netherlands turn Marxist-Leninist? Hell no, I would lose my freedom of speech, freedom of association, etc. And in return we don't even get the abolition of wage labour and commodity production!


The mortality rate in Cuba is slightly higher than in the Netherlands, but it is still not that far behind.

The life expectancy in Cuba is also higher than in the Netherlands and the United States. Why does the WHO not take this into consideration? It has been said by WHO that they focus on quality, and even throw things like literacy rates into their statistics, which has nothing to do with the healthcare system.

And I'm sure if your Anarcho-Communist political organization made it clear in the face of capitalists that they had an agenda to overthrow them, they would put you and your fellow comrades in jail just like how any counter revolutionary force would be put in jail.



If Marxist-Leninists come to power in the Netherlands the chances are, say, fivefold bigger I will be killed by the state than in a bourgeois democracy.


How come none of your statements about bourgeois democracy have any proof or evidence?



To my knowledge, the Bolsheviks also executed sympathizers of Makhno. And being locked up in a prison camp meant there is a ten percent chance of dying. ("R.J. Rummel's Lethal Politics: Soviet Genocide and Mass Murder Since 1917, surveying various estimates of attrition rates in Soviet camps, finds the typical camp death rate ranged between 10 and 30%. Taking the middle estimate (20%) and using basic arithmetic, one arrives at the 10% figure.")

So yeah, pretty high chance I would be killed by Stalin's goons.

So excuse me for wanting to not die.

Who are "Stalin's goons?"

Are they the Bolsheviks?

[Summerspeaker]

It's telling but of course unsurprising that white folks really hate socialism on average. According to this poll, whites as a whole view it nearly as negatively as people in the 75+k income bracket. This gives further support to the notion of whiteness as tied to support for capitalist colonialism and essentially a club of privilege.

[Robert]

the notion of whiteness as tied to support for capitalist colonialism and essentially a club of privilege.

I think you went and fucked up there, comrade.

[#FF0000]

I think you went and fucked up there, comrade.

Nah actually he's right. "Whiteness" isn't really a thing. We talk about black people and white people, but what does "white" really mean? White only refers to skin color -- there's no such thing as "white culture". And who counts as white? That depends on who you ask and when you ask. Today, I'm white. In the 19th century, I wouldn't be.

[Robert]

He may be right on the merits; the rich have the most reason to oppose socialism, and the rich in the USA are mostly white and non-Hispanic.

I was referring to his use of "white folks" and wondering if that might seem a prejudiced generalization to the thought cops hereabout.

I ain't complaining, to be clear.

[#FF0000]

He may be right on the merits; the rich have the most reason to oppose socialism, and the rich in the USA are mostly white and non-Hispanic.

I was referring to his use of "white folks" and wondering if that might seem a prejudiced generalization to the thought cops hereabout.

I ain't complaining, to be clear.

i didn't see the first part of his post -- just what you quoted.

that part is kinda dumb i think.

most of us are "white" on revleft, I think.

[workersadvocate]

European descended people aren't always reactionary, but the social identity and ideological construct called whiteness is inseparable from capitalist relations, a key foundation of the 'club of privilege' and joint alliance of the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie. Whiteness is reactionary to the core, a monstrous fetter to the class consciousness, class unity, classwide organization and class struggle action of the international proletariat.
I am a working class person born with "white skin" in America, but fuck whiteness, my identity ain't no longer "white"...workers of the world, unite! I identify not with some other race or nationality, not with any motherland or fatherland, but with the international working class and our common struggle.

[Summerspeaker]

European descended people aren't always reactionary, but the social identity and ideological construct called whiteness is inseparable from capitalist relations, a key foundation of the 'club of privilege' and joint alliance of the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie. Whiteness is reactionary to the core, a monstrous fetter to the class consciousness, class unity, classwide organization and class struggle action of the international proletariat.
I am a working class person born with "white skin" in America, but fuck whiteness, my identity ain't no longer "white"...workers of the world, unite! I identify not with some other race or nationality, not with any motherland or fatherland, but with the international working class and our common struggle.

:thumbup: This exactly. Though any national or cultural identity can and usually is employed against class struggle, whiteness comes directly out of the history of European colonialism and has been synonymous with enjoying the benefits of domination. It's mostly a sham. Though white-privileged folks have access to better deal than people of color on the aggregate, the vast majority of us would do well to smash the existing capitalist order. Doing this entails undoing whiteness. If you're socially coded as white, be a race traitor.

As a side note, I'm genderqueer and prefer neutral or outside-the-binary pronouns whenever I can get them.

[#FF0000]

treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity

[Robert]

If you're socially coded as white, be a race traitor. I do see your point, but it's clumsy at best, inflammatory and divisive at best.

If one is asked to "betray his race," it sounds like he is being asked to align himself with the interests of some other, disadvantaged, race, not that he become "post-racial" or "non-racial," which is what I hope you are advocating.

And then there is the other point, already raised but not rebutted, that there are way too many "white" (socially coded and pigment-wise) leftists to be generalizing as to the reactionary character of "white folks" as you are.

[workersadvocate]

:thumbup: This exactly. Though any national or cultural identity can and usually is employed against class struggle, whiteness comes directly out of the history of European colonialism and has been synonymous with enjoying the benefits of domination. It's mostly a sham. Though white-privileged folks have access to better deal than people of color on the aggregate, the vast majority of us would do well to smash the existing capitalist order. Doing this entails undoing whiteness. If you're socially coded as white, be a race traitor.

As a side note, I'm genderqueer and prefer neutral or outside-the-binary pronouns whenever I can get them.

But let's not merely be "race traitors". We have to be internationalist proletarian revolutionaries, and there can be no collaboration or peaceful coexistence with exploitative society, or its ideologies, or its clubs of privilege ordered against us as class enemies. Let us strive for a worldwide humanity-liberating communism, because the only alternative offered to humanity by the continuation of class society is barbarism and death.
We working people of the world have the common interests and the potential power to fundamentally change this world, liberate all humanity and fully unleash and develop the world's productive forces in our interests. WE have been naught, WE shall be all...that's the whole point of communism, and the reason why 'to each according to needs' is our pursuit. Working people who embrace whiteness---and through it, identifying with and supporting capitalism---have been tricked into a fool's bargain, with more chains binding them to class society's forced march on the road to more exploitation, more oppressive barbarism and more unnecessary death and destruction.
To negate whiteness, we must instead assert "workers of the world unite", and we must shine light in the path of united workers' struggle toward the workers' republic and our worldwide revolutionary emancipation and ultimately to end of class and social stratifications in the "kingdom of necessity" with actualized abundant communism and its 'to each according to needs'. Whiteness is a deception keeping our class in our chains, allowing this system to continue, and for what? Not even the proverbial reward of 30 shekels of silver given to Judas is concretely offered as a bribe anymore to most of those workers still foolishly loyal to this system. Even if it was, 30 blood-soaked shekels as a miserable bribed slave of world capitalism, or the whole Earth as free human being together with all humanity jointly associated in a tomorrow built of us, by us, and for us forever? Those who claim it is not possible to ever acheive the latter speak only about and for themselves. I believe the world's working people can find our way, and we will. Capitalism is in decay, and the whiteness deception will be seen through like in the 'Emporer's New Clothes' tale if we worker communists actually approach this problem as internationalist proletarian revolutionaries and communists when confronting it with our class. Treason to capitalism and striving for communism is our concrete expression of loyalty to humanity.

[RGacky3]

Are you from 1902 or something?



No ..... I don't get it.


Why? Words are just words, they don't actually contain theoretical content in themselves. What people think of a give phoneme-cluster is significant only so far as what that cluster denotes is significant. The German workers who sat quietly by as the Spartacists were massacred, you'll remember, were by no means averse to "socialism", but it did Luxemburg and Liebknecht no good.

OK, but the WORD socialism is generally associated with a certain concept which has been demonized over and over and over again, at hte very least its considered an alternative to capitalism.

We have to take the American historical context in the picture here. In Europe the governments tried to take socialism for themselves away from the revolutionaries, in the US they tried to kill it.


treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity

I hate it when people say that, not because of their point, I totally agree with the thought behind it, but when you say that your saying
A: You have a duty to "whiteness"
B: You are going to betray that duty.

Whiteness is not a thing, the only reason blackness exists is because slaves were taken from their land and they never had any "national" origin really, they wern't immigrants from one country to another, they were rounded up and sold as slaves, so they became "black people" basically people of African desent but no real national origin. In countries without that history its not "black people" perse, its Nigerians, Congolese, South Africans, Ethiopians or whatever.

Indians and Mexicans have nothing culturally in common even though they are "brown." The same with Irish and Russians.

[Tim Cornelis]

Stalin's interpretation is not any DIFFERENT from Marx or Lenin's interpretation. But please continue on with your revisionist propaganda.

Oooh, here we go the fuck again with the revisionist bullshit, and this time it's even more crazy since I'm not a Marxist and cannot even be a revisionist.

Stalin denied that the law of value was the most important economic law in capitalism, which contradicts with the very fundamentals of Marxism.

Stalin believed in the perpetuation of commodity production in socialism, which contradicts with Marxism.

Stalin did not implement socialism as imagined by Marx and Engels, i.e. with labour vouchers and workers' democracy.

Stalin did not end wage labour, which not only contradicts Marxism but socialism as a whole.

Socialism (or as Marx called it: lower-phase communism) was supposed to be a transitional phase, not a transitional society, that would last until the bourgeoisie was defeated. The 'bourgeoisie' (the Whites) were defeated in 1922, and instead of the state withering away because class antagonisms disappeared Stalin strengthened the state and reinforced new class relations: the nomenklatura were the new class.




Why is the U.K rated higher than Cuba?

The U.K has 1 doctor per 600 people, compared to Cuba which has 1 doctor per 175 people.

... Well obviously because healthcare is about quality, not quantity.


And, Cuba's healthcare system was a lot more subsidized and well funded when the Soviet Union was around. When the Soviet Union collapsed private capitalism was restored, the U.S. went in and sanctioned Cuba's healthcare system to prevent Cuba from achieving higher standards of living and better quality healthcare.

There is no private capitalism in Cuba, they are only starting to privatise the economy since 2 years or so.




And for most X-rays and surgeries, it costs around $50 to $60 in Cuba, and everyone has universal access to healthcare.

That says nothing about the quality of healthcare.


The mortality rate in Cuba is slightly higher than in the Netherlands, but it is still not that far behind.

The life expectancy in Cuba is also higher than in the Netherlands and the United States. Why does the WHO not take this into consideration?

BECAUSE THAT TELLS US NOTHING ABOUT THE QUALITY OF HEALTHCARE!

It may tell us something about the quality of life. Jesus H. Christ!

And it's not even true. The Netherlands is ranked 16th, Cuba is ranked 36th (together with US) in regards to life expectancy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy).



It has been said by WHO that they focus on quality, and even throw things like literacy rates into their statistics, which has nothing to do with the healthcare system.

Well actually, if the WHO would not take into account literacy rate Cuba would presumably fall a few places since Cuba is ranked second in literacy rate (after Georgia). (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_literacy_rate)

So it's an argument why Cuba should be ranked lower than it is now.


And I'm sure if your Anarcho-Communist political organization made it clear in the face of capitalists that they had an agenda to overthrow them, they would put you and your fellow comrades in jail just like how any counter revolutionary force would be put in jail.

My anarchist organisation already explicitly and publicly states it wants to overthrow capitalism and the state. Yet I'm still free to express my opinion and face no jail time.

Sure, in times of a threat of actual social revolution the bourgeois state will step up its game and abridge freedom, but not as severe as a Marxist-Leninist dictatorship would.


How come none of your statements about bourgeois democracy have any proof or evidence?

Like?



Who are "Stalin's goons?"

Are they the Bolsheviks?

They are the Marxist-Leninists who tolerate no dissident, i.e. those who follow the ideas and practices of Stalin: purge, purge, purge society of all "bourgeois", "idealist", "utopian" elements. Anarchism has been described as all that.

The KKE in Greece is already denouncing anarchists as fascists, which doesn't really give me the confidence I will walk away from a Marxist-Leninist takeover freely.

[Summerspeaker]

But let's not merely be "race traitors". We have to be internationalist proletarian revolutionaries, and there can be no collaboration or peaceful coexistence with exploitative society, or its ideologies, or its clubs of privilege ordered against us as class enemies. Let us strive for a worldwide humanity-liberating communism, because the only alternative offered to humanity by the continuation of class society is barbarism and death.

Definitely. The phrase comes from Noel Ignatiev (http://www.newformulation.org/4Dhondt1.htm) and has its basis in a desire for worldwide revolution against capitalism. It's typically - though not always - liberals who argue most vehemently against the notion.


Working people who embrace whiteness---and through it, identifying with and supporting capitalism---have been tricked into a fool's bargain, with more chains binding them to class society's forced march on the road to more exploitation, more oppressive barbarism and more unnecessary death and destruction.

Indeed, though a lucky few do scrabble to the top on the backs of their fellows and enjoy the benefits of such a position.


I hate it when people say that, not because of their point, I totally agree with the thought behind it, but when you say that your saying
A: You have a duty to "whiteness"
B: You are going to betray that duty.

That's how whiteness has often been constructed, either implicitly or explicitly. Consider what David Starkley said (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/13/david-starkey-claims-whites-black) about the recent London riots.

[workersadvocate]

It has been in the wake of the August Uprising (and the awful reaction to it on the middle class left as well as right), that I begin making a full conscious struggle and self-criticism, resulting in a break with whiteness (the Arab spring uprisings actually made me start rethinking this), with nationalist sentiments, and with any remaining illusions in the middle class left.

I doubt that the middle class left means what I meant about "whiteness". If they did, they have to be no-going-back class traitors, fully integrated with and fully focused on the independent international working class as the agency of fundamental social change (for which there is no sufficient substitute).
Which is to say, they would constructively criticize themselves for petty bourgeois composition and tendencies, and strain themselves to integrate with the international working class itself, then educate and organize and agitate widely within our class for its own self-emancipation and own class rule through a workers' republic (there is no substitute able to fulfill these tasks). That's what it will require to genuinely actively unite the working people of the world and bury "whiteness" along with the capitalist system it serves. In America, we are the 67%; throughout the world we working people are likely the 80-85%, and the whole world should belong to us.

[Comrade Hill]

Stalin denied that the law of value was the most important economic law in capitalism, which contradicts with the very fundamentals of Marxism.


Stalin never downplayed the role of the law of value. He simply thought that the law of value was more complicated than just "abolishing commodity production."

"Some comrades deny the objective character of laws of science, and of laws of political economy particularly, under socialism. They deny that the laws of political economy reflect law-governed processes which operate independently of the will of man. They believe that in view of the specific role assigned to the Soviet state by history, the Soviet state and its leaders can abolish existing laws of political economy and can "form," "create," new laws."(J.V. Stalin, Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R, pp. 1-2)

The fact of the matter is that Stalin never was disenfranchised with the law of value, he simply didn't believe we had to completely abolish commodity production, because the nature of the law is more complicated than simply a commodity's existance.



Stalin believed in the perpetuation of commodity production in socialism, which contradicts with Marxism.


This is yet another claim without evidence that any 5 year old can make. Where did Marx say there can't be commodity production in Socialism?

"The laws of his own social action, hitherto standing face to face with man as laws of nature foreign to, and dominating him, will then be used with full understanding, and so mastered by him."(F. Engels, Anti-Dühring)

Man cannot change the laws of nature and the economics of it overnight.



Stalin did not implement socialism as imagined by Marx and Engels, i.e. with labour vouchers and workers' democracy.


You are right, Stalin did not implement socialism, as Stalin is one man and does not have the power to control everything. It was a joint effort made by the Central Committee and local Soviets (there is your worker's democracy).

A quote from V.N. Mironyuk, the Bolshevist Economic Model:

"The essential principles of this model of society which received the name 'Bolshevist' are:
1. Extraction of income from the last stage of production, based on the all-people's ownership of the means of production and distribution of income according to labour inputs.
2. The dictatorship of the proletariat with the formation of a Deputy body of Soviets in accordance with labour services based on production-territorial principles.
3. Freedom of individual creative self-expression. The first principle was achieved through the single component socialist market with a two-scale system of prices from the 1930s through to the beginning of the 1950s.

This market was called a 'single component market' because the commodities in this market consisted only of the essential consumer goods for the people and not the means of production nor the product of production-technical assignments. Naturally labour power was not a commodity as the workers themselves were collective owners of the means of production."



Stalin did not end wage labour, which not only contradicts Marxism but socialism as a whole.


Have you ever read anything other than a bunch of articles written by bourgeois liberals and anarchists?

Workers were not compelled to sell their labour as a commodity in the Soviet Union.

A quote from Stalin in the "Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R:

"Well, and what is to be done if the conditions for the conversion of commodity production into capitalist production do not exist, if the means of production are no longer private but socialist property, if the system of wage labour no longer exists and labour power is no longer a commodity, and if the system of exploitation has long been abolished -- can it be considered then that commodity production will lead to capitalism all the same? No, it cannot. Yet ours is precisely such a society, a society where private ownership of the means of production, the system of wage labour, and the system of exploitation have long ceased to exist."



Socialism (or as Marx called it: lower-phase communism) was supposed to be a transitional phase, not a transitional society, that would last until the bourgeoisie was defeated. The 'bourgeoisie' (the Whites) were defeated in 1922, and instead of the state withering away because class antagonisms disappeared Stalin strengthened the state and reinforced new class relations: the nomenklatura were the new class.


So during the phase, a society is none existent? How is that possible?

The dialectical dying off of commodity production and the dying off of the centralization of capital won't happen until the rest of the world has abolished the capitalist mode of production.

Or perhaps the Soviet Union should've just gotten rid of it's borders and gotten rid of it's military leaders so the Nazis could destroy them?

And Marx and Engels advocated for the proletariat strengthening the state when it takes power.



... Well obviously because healthcare is about quality, not quantity.


So you'd prefer a bourgeois democracy over a M-L dictatorship, because bourgeois democracies own the quality products, whereas the M-L dictatorships are sanctioned and have lower quality products? You sound like quite the opportunist.

Quality to me means being able to provide more services to people. When you have MORE doctors, it is easier to do that.



It may tell us something about the quality of life. Jesus H. Christ!


There is no need to make unnecessary distinctions to try and fit your argument. I believe you are smart enough to know that the quality of life has at least SOME connection to the quality of healthcare.



And it's not even true. The Netherlands is ranked 16th, Cuba is ranked 36th (together with US) in regards to life expectancy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy).


Fair enough, but again, things like medical supplies and food supplies are limited in Cuba because of imperialist governments.



Well actually, if the WHO would not take into account literacy rate Cuba would presumably fall a few places since Cuba is ranked second in literacy rate (after Georgia). (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_literacy_rate)

So it's an argument why Cuba should be ranked lower than it is now.


And same goes for the Netherlands.



My anarchist organisation already explicitly and publicly states it wants to overthrow capitalism and the state. Yet I'm still free to express my opinion and face no jail time.

Sure, in times of a threat of actual social revolution the bourgeois state will step up its game and abridge freedom, but not as severe as a Marxist-Leninist dictatorship would.


Alright fair enough, you can choose to flee to a bourgeois country when the proletariat revolts then.



They are the Marxist-Leninists who tolerate no dissident, i.e. those who follow the ideas and practices of Stalin: purge, purge, purge society of all "bourgeois", "idealist", "utopian" elements. Anarchism has been described as all that.

The KKE in Greece is already denouncing anarchists as fascists, which doesn't really give me the confidence I will walk away from a Marxist-Leninist takeover freely.

Really? So all M-Ls follow the KKE? Interesting.

[Renegade Saint]

Whenever I argue with a Marxist-Leninist I always imagine them muttering "and you should be put in a gulag for disagreeing." under their breath at the end.

[Comrade Hill]

Whenever I argue with a Marxist-Leninist I always imagine them muttering "and you should be put in a gulag for disagreeing." under their breath at the end.

And when I argue with a Trot, I imagine a confused Menshevik, arguing under the cloak of Marxism, who worships nothing but a failed one man petty-bourgeois army, so seeks to overthrow the proletarian dictatorship.

"Leon Trotsky was a Menshevik who violently attacked Lenin and Bolshevism every step of the way until they seized power in Russia. Trotsky was the only major Communist Party leader who did not attend Lenin's funeral. He was never considered for the position of leader of the Party. Trotsky's program was defeated in a landslide at the 13th Party Congress in 1924 and at the 15th Party Congress in 1927, the latter by a vote of 740,000 to 4,000. Trotsky was expelled from the USSR and the Communist Party after trying to undermine the Soviet state with demonstrations and trying to create a faction in the Party after his program was defeated. Once exiled by majority vote, he planned coordinated sabotage and assassinations of Party leaders and called for a new revolution in the Soviet Union to place himself in power. He escaped to the West, where he served the imperialist powers, including the FBI and Gestapo until his execution at the hands of Ramón Mercader in 1940."

http://revolutionaryspiritapl.blogspot.com/2010/06/introduction-american-party-of-labor.html

[Renegade Saint]

And when I argue with a Trot, I imagine a confused Menshevik, arguing under the cloak of Marxism, who worships nothing but a failed one man petty-bourgeois army, so seeks to overthrow the proletarian dictatorship.

"Leon Trotsky was a Menshevik who violently attacked Lenin and Bolshevism every step of the way until they seized power in Russia. Trotsky was the only major Communist Party leader who did not attend Lenin's funeral. He was never considered for the position of leader of the Party. Trotsky's program was defeated in a landslide at the 13th Party Congress in 1924 and at the 15th Party Congress in 1927, the latter by a vote of 740,000 to 4,000. Trotsky was expelled from the USSR and the Communist Party after trying to undermine the Soviet state with demonstrations and trying to create a faction in the Party after his program was defeated. Once exiled by majority vote, he planned coordinated sabotage and assassinations of Party leaders and called for a new revolution in the Soviet Union to place himself in power. He escaped to the West, where he served the imperialist powers, including the FBI and Gestapo until his execution at the hands of Ramón Mercader in 1940."

http://revolutionaryspiritapl.blogspot.com/2010/06/introduction-american-party-of-labor.html
I'm not in the least bit interested in re-fighting things that have been argued 1000 times on this forum. I would only point out that Trotsky joined the Bolsheviks before they seized power.

To prove my point, I need only ask: Do you believe in allowing multiple independent political parties?

[Comrade Hill]

I'm not in the least bit interested in re-fighting things that have been argued 1000 times on this forum. I would only point out that Trotsky joined the Bolsheviks before they seized power.


He joined them when he realized the mensheviks couldn't win. He was a stranger to the Bolshevik Party.



To prove my point, I need only ask: Do you believe in allowing multiple independent political parties?


You mean like the Russian Social-Democratic Labor Party? Ugh, you disgust me.

[PhoenixAsh]

Lenin defended Trotski. Just saying.

Anyways...lets keep this debate civil.

[Comrade Hill]

Lenin defended Trotski. Just saying.

Anyways...lets keep this debate civil.

Comrade, what exactly did Lenin defend about Trotsky?

Because in works like these, Lenin completely detests the ideas of Trotsky.

http://marx2mao.com/Lenin/TD11.html

[Renegade Saint]

He joined them when he realized the mensheviks couldn't win. He was a stranger to the Bolshevik Party.



You mean like the Russian Social-Democratic Labor Party? Ugh, you disgust me.
A simple yes or no would suffice. In your ideal Marxist-Leninist paradise would multiple parties be allowed to compete? Yes or no.

"Trotsky long ago said that unification is impossible. Trotsky understood this and from that time on there has been no better Bolshevik." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trotskyism#cite_note-3)
Vladimir Lenin, Minutes of the Petrograd Committee of the Bolshevik Party, 1 November 1917

But like I said, I really couldn't care less what Lenin thought of Trotsky. Both of them were very imperfect human beings, and both of then are dead.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trotskyism#cite_note-3)

[Comrade Hill]

A simple yes or no would suffice. In your ideal Marxist-Leninist paradise would multiple parties be allowed to compete? Yes or no.


A proletarian dictatorship is a revolutionary one party state. So no, I do not.

I don't support multiple parties with heterogenous class elements. Do I look like some kind of reformist to you?

[RGacky3]

and both of then are dead.


Thank you, who gives a shit what they think, we're not in 1917 and we are not in Russia.

[Comrade Hill]

Thank you, who gives a shit what they think, we're not in 1917 and we are not in Russia.

My god, you sound like you are 10 years old. :lol:

"Political rights do not originate in parliaments; they are, rather, forced upon parliaments from without. And even their enactment into law has for a long time been no guarantee of their security. Just as the employers always try to nullify every concession they had made to labor as soon as opportunity offered, as soon as any signs of weakness were observable in the workers' organizations, so governments also are always inclined to restrict or to abrogate completely rights and freedoms that have been achieved if they imagine that the people will put up no resistance. Even in those countries where such things as freedom of the press, right of assembly, right of combination, and the like have long existed, governments are constantly trying to restrict those rights or to reinterpret them by juridical hair-splitting. Political rights do not exist because they have been legally set down on a piece of paper, but only when they have become the ingrown habit of a people, and when any attempt to impair them will meet with the violent resistance of the populace . Where this is not the case, there is no help in any parliamentary Opposition or any Platonic appeals to the constitution."

— Rudolf Rocker, Anarcho-Syndicalism: Theory & Practice, 1947

Who cares about Anarcho-Syndicalism, we are not in Spain and we are not in 1936.

[RGacky3]

No shit, we arn't in Spain and we are not in 1936, so we SHOULD'NT care about ideologies that were made for that time period.

Notice though I don't call my self a Rockerist.

[Renegade Saint]

A proletarian dictatorship is a revolutionary one party state. So no, I do not.

I don't support multiple parties with heterogenous class elements. Do I look like some kind of reformist to you?
What if a significant section of the proletariat is dissatisfied with the one party?

According to Marx the DotP is merely the working class organized as the ruling class. Nothing about a one party state.

And since you've just admitted that you would want some sort of state sanctions against me (whether prison, mental institution, or death) for not wanting to be a part of your marxist-leninist party you're proven my point.

[Dimmu]

So i go into this thread thinking "damn, good news". Instead you have a flamewar between trots and MLs...

[Renegade Saint]

So i go into this thread thinking "damn, good news". Instead you have a flamewar between trots and MLs...
I thought it was good news too, but a bunch of wet blankets keep insisting (without the slightest bit of proof) that all these people who feel positively about socialism are just social democrats. And since social democrats are just "social fascists" it's not good news at all. Or so their logic goes.

[Comrade Hill]

No shit, we arn't in Spain and we are not in 1936, so we SHOULD'NT care about ideologies that were made for that time period.

Notice though I don't call my self a Rockerist.

This is childish petty-bourgeois nonsense; you did not invent the term Anarcho-Syndicalist, nor is it some kind of new relevant tendency. You should pay attention to how it has been used historically, as well as other forms of leftism.



And since you've just admitted that you would want some sort of state sanctions against me (whether prison, mental institution, or death) for not wanting to be a part of your marxist-leninist party you're proven my point.

Well since you have not made clear to me what this "point" is, then it really doesn't matter to me.

Marx says that the proletariat should work to get rid of its utopian and idealistic elements.

"The bourgeois monarchy of Louis Philippe can be followed only by a bourgeois republic, that is to say, whereas a limited section of the bourgeoisie ruled in the name of the king, the whole of the bourgeoisie will now rule in the name of the people. The demands of the Paris proletariat are utopian nonsense, to which an end must be put."
(Karl Marx, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, p. 18)


I thought it was good news too, but a bunch of wet blankets keep insisting (without the slightest bit of proof) that all these people who feel positively about socialism are just social democrats. And since social democrats are just "social fascists" it's not good news at all. Or so their logic goes.

When did I compare social democrats to social fascists?

The proof for my point is right here in the article, if you bothered to read it at all:


While there are substantial differences in how liberals and conservatives think of capitalism, the gaps are far narrower. Most notably, liberal Democrats and Occupy Wall Street supporters are as likely to view capitalism positively as negatively.

Please tell me what is so great and new about this?

[ColonelCossack]

No, Marxism-Leninism is based on the interpretation of Marx and Lenin by Stalin, hence it is fair to call it Stalinism.

...I call myself a Marxist-Leninist because I "align" myself to the theories of those people (Marx and Lenin). Stalin doesn't necessarily come into the equation, at least in my theoretical opinions or why I self-describe as an M-L.

[Renegade Saint]

Well since you have not made clear to me what this "point" is, then it really doesn't matter to me.

Marx says that the proletariat should work to get rid of its utopian and idealistic elements.

"The bourgeois monarchy of Louis Philippe can be followed only by a bourgeois republic, that is to say, whereas a limited section of the bourgeoisie ruled in the name of the king, the whole of the bourgeoisie will now rule in the name of the people. The demands of the Paris proletariat are utopian nonsense, to which an end must be put."
(Karl Marx, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, p. 18)



When did I compare social democrats to social fascists?

The "point" was that for me and many other leftists we feel much safer living in a bourgeois democracy than a Stalinist one-party state. You've confirmed that anyone who doesn't conform to your views would have reason to fear being imprisoned or worse.

One contextless quote doesn't mean shit. Marx got his start in the newspaper business championing absolute freedom of speech.

The 'social fascist' line was a(n apparently too subtle) dig at the ComIntern's line from 1929-1934.



...I call myself a Marxist-Leninist because I "align" myself to the theories of those people (Marx and Lenin). Stalin doesn't necessarily come into the equation, at least in my theoretical opinions or why I self-describe as an M-L.

You might be better off calling yourself just a Leninist then, to avoid that connotation. Although if you embrace 'socialism in one country' then Stalin would come into the equation.

[RGacky3]

This is childish petty-bourgeois nonsense; you did not invent the term Anarcho-Syndicalist, nor is it some kind of new relevant tendency. You should pay attention to how it has been used historically, as well as other forms of leftism.


Ok .... And what? I see how YOUR ideology has been used historically and how IT turned out.

BTW, how is it petty-bourgeois, explain how my sentance is some how derived from small time capitalist or sole propriatorship thought ... Or are you juts throwing those terms around meaninglessly like marxist-leninists generally do without any meaning and just as a swear word.

[RGacky3]

So i go into this thread thinking "damn, good news". Instead you have a flamewar between trots and MLs...


I agree, I think best just to not engage people who call themself "somedeadguyist"

[Comrade Hill]

The "point" was that for me and many other leftists we feel much safer living in a bourgeois democracy than a Stalinist one-party state. You've confirmed that anyone who doesn't conform to your views would have reason to fear being imprisoned or worse.


I've confirmed none of the sort. I have confirmed that I do not conform to Brezhnevism, i.e. approving of anyone who flies the red flag and allowing a bunch of revisionists to stray away from the revolutionary character of Marxism-Leninism. That is not the same thing as imprisoning you, or beating you with a fucking stick.

We allow for self criticism and we are open to other ideas, and we allow for our fellow comrades to help us construct our practice through Democratic Centralism. As long as it doesn't promote bourgeois counter-revolution, or a willingness to "co exist" with other capitalists.

If you refuse to follow the revolutionary doctrine then you will simply do as the proletariat says, i.e. follow the rules of the plan for society. If you refuse to do so, and you try to organize a counter revolution, you get imprisoned for possibly *gasp* a maximum of 10 years, where you have food, water, clothing, and shelter, whereas if you refuse to follow the laws of capitalism you end up on the street begging.



One contextless quote doesn't mean shit. Marx got his start in the newspaper business championing absolute freedom of speech.


Contextless? I beg of you to please read the quote again. The quote is not contextless.



The 'social fascist' line was a(n apparently too subtle) dig at the ComIntern's line from 1929-1934.


Why is it that you and other leftists in the OI refuse to post sources to back up your claims?

I don't know about you, but I like to READ books and articles. Do you mind?

[Comrade Hill]

Ok .... And what? I see how YOUR ideology has been used historically and how IT turned out.


That's actually not the point I was making, what I was saying is that it's childish and ignorant to ignore history because the people are DEAD.

I believe this quote from the article, the Worker's vanguard, summarizes the failure of anarchism, and how anarchists have a tendency to side with counter-revolutionary petty-bourgeois forces against revolutionary proletarian forces.

"Makhno did attempt to ally with other anti-Bolshevik forces in the Ukraine. Notably, there was Makhno's attempt to ally with the forces of fellow former Red Army commander Grigorev. Grigorev had the worst record of murder, rape, torture and other atrocities committed against Jews of all the peasant bandit leaders ravaging the Ukrainian country-side during the Russian Civil War.

This alliance ended badly for Grigorev. Makhno murdered him, and Grigorev's peasant followers joined Makhno's rebel army—but continued to commit pogroms."
(Reprinted from Workers Vanguard No. 839, 7 January 2005.)

Here is some more history about the pogroms committed by Mahkno's secret police, gathered by someone who is still alive, hopefully this will satisfy your fetishism for the present:

"Novo-Poltava colony (Kherson gub.)
In August 1919 a detachment of 30 Makhnovites attacked the colony and began to plunder. The Jewish self-defense, however, drove them out. The second day, a Makhnovite train and two (somethings) went through looting and murdering nonstop. The self-defense was destroyed, the “ik”o” farm was ruined. All told, there were 84 murdered Jews. 800 houses were plundered([3]). Other sources mention another number of Jewish murder victims, namely 122([4]). According to the latter information, the pogrom was done by the Makhnovites and (something, something) by the colony."

http://www.revleft.com/vb/makhno-file-t158083/index.html?t=158083&highlight=Makhno

But of course, it is convenient for you (for your argument) to say this is irrelevant, because you childishly loath history and claim anything that happened before you were born is irrelevant.

The idea of anarchism has existed LONG before Marxism-Leninism, by other people who are DEAD. So you are a hypocrite for calling me and other M-L's "somedeadguyist." If you are truly into the contemporary, "new" trends, you should trash your idealistic anarchist ideas.



BTW, how is it petty-bourgeois, explain how my sentance is some how derived from small time capitalist or sole propriatorship thought ... Or are you juts throwing those terms around meaninglessly like marxist-leninists generally do without any meaning and just as a swear word.

Your apathy towards the history of class struggle and the history of socialist thought is one aspect. Your notion that you'd rather live in a bourgeois dictatorship of capital than a proletarian worker's state is another.

[Renegade Saint]

I'm not going to bother responding to what you said point by point (since anyone with eyes can see the danger in allowing you to define what is "bourgeois counter-revolution", and thus banned), but since you're apparently ignorant of the Third Period of the Comintern here you go:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_fascism

[Comrade Hill]

I'm not going to bother responding to what you said point by point (since anyone with eyes can see the danger in allowing you to define what is "bourgeois counter-revolution", and thus banned), but since you're apparently ignorant of the Third Period of the Comintern here you go:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_fascism

And since you Trots see us as fascist traitors who support a degenerated workers state, and when 14 old Bolsheviks confessed to plotting with Trotsky to killing Stalin?

What makes you think we'd be any safer under your Social-Democratic regime?

[RGacky3]

Your apathy towards the history of class struggle and the history of socialist thought is one aspect. Your notion that you'd rather live in a bourgeois dictatorship of capital than a proletarian worker's state is another.

Oh I would love to live in a proletarian worker's state, but thats hardly what you can call the USSR.

Apathy towards class struggle? I spent many years of my life in class struggle, so I would'nt presume anything.

As ofr hte history of socialist thought, I have respect for all sorts of socialist thought, not just somedeadguyism.


That's actually not the point I was making, what I was saying is that it's childish and ignorant to ignore history because the people are DEAD.


No, you don't ignore history, but you don't repeat it either, especially when it FAILED.


"Makhno did attempt to ally with other anti-Bolshevik forces in the Ukraine. Notably, there was Makhno's attempt to ally with the forces of fellow former Red Army commander Grigorev. Grigorev had the worst record of murder, rape, torture and other atrocities committed against Jews of all the peasant bandit leaders ravaging the Ukrainian country-side during the Russian Civil War.

This alliance ended badly for Grigorev. Makhno murdered him, and Grigorev's peasant followers joined Makhno's rebel army—but continued to commit pogroms."
(Reprinted from Workers Vanguard No. 839, 7 January 2005.)

Here is some more history about the pogroms committed by Mahkno's secret police, gathered by someone who is still alive, hopefully this will satisfy your fetishism for the present:

"Novo-Poltava colony (Kherson gub.)
In August 1919 a detachment of 30 Makhnovites attacked the colony and began to plunder. The Jewish self-defense, however, drove them out. The second day, a Makhnovite train and two (somethings) went through looting and murdering nonstop. The self-defense was destroyed, the “ik”o” farm was ruined. All told, there were 84 murdered Jews. 800 houses were plundered([3]). Other sources mention another number of Jewish murder victims, namely 122([4]). According to the latter information, the pogrom was done by the Makhnovites and (something, something) by the colony."


All of this is moralising ... which I thought you MLs were against? But I guess its fine to be a moralist when its against someone you don't like.


But of course, it is convenient for you (for your argument) to say this is irrelevant, because you childishly loath history and claim anything that happened before you were born is irrelevant.


since when do I "loath" history (whats up with MLs love of hyperboly and violent imagery), no I don't claim its irrelevant, I claim its stupid to try and follow failed historical models.


The idea of anarchism has existed LONG before Marxism-Leninism, by other people who are DEAD. So you are a hypocrite for calling me and other M-L's "somedeadguyist." If you are truly into the contemporary, "new" trends, you should trash your idealistic anarchist ideas.


Anarchism is a tradition, its not a single theory, Marxism-Leninism is, Anarchism is everything from mutualism to parecon to syndicalism, Marxism-Leninism is simply somedeadguyism.

[Comrade Hill]

Oh I would love to live in a proletarian worker's state, but thats hardly what you can call the USSR.


Are you not an Anarcho-Syndicalist then? Anarcho-Syndicalists claim that there can be no proletarian state.

"Like the anarchist philosophers who developed the initial hostility to the State due, in part, to its role as a weapon of class warfare, anarcho-syndicalists too regard the State as a profoundly anti-worker institution. Like Benjamin Franklin, Anarcho-Syndicalists view the primary purpose of the State as being the defence of private property and therefore of economic, social and political privilege, even when doing so denies its citizens the ability to enjoy material independence and the social autonomy which springs from it (see Question #1b)."

http://www.anarchosyndicalism.net/faq/1c.htm

And about the USSR. I'll get back to you on that, whenever you are ready to provide evidence for your claims then I will provide evidence for mine. I don't want to feel like I am arguing with somebody who doesn't care about evidence.



Apathy towards class struggle? I spent many years of my life in class struggle, so I would'nt presume anything.


I said apathy towards the history of class struggle.



As for the history of socialist thought, I have respect for all sorts of socialist thought, not just somedeadguyism.


You don't seem to respect anything other than social democratic reformism.

And yes, Marx and Lenin are dead. Proudhon and Bakurin are dead. Do you ignore them as well?



No, you don't ignore history, but you don't repeat it either, especially when it FAILED.


Why did it take all this effort just to get you to elaborate on what you said? :closedeyes:

Now that I've seen the way how you argue (which is through claims and not evidence) I will not bother wasting my time with this anymore. I am beginning to see your true colors.



All of this is moralising ... which I thought you MLs were against? But I guess its fine to be a moralist when its against someone you don't like.


Actually what I was demonstrating is that historically, anarchists have held a false conscious, and have the tendency to organize counter revolutions against the proletarian people.



since when do I "loath" history (whats up with MLs love of hyperboly and violent imagery), no I don't claim its irrelevant, I claim its stupid to try and follow failed historical models.


You are just too much. "somedeadguyism" isn't hyperbole to you?



Anarchism is a tradition, its not a single theory, Marxism-Leninism is, Anarchism is everything from mutualism to parecon to syndicalism, Marxism-Leninism is simply somedeadguyism.

:laugh:

Your simplistic analysis of everything, it's really comical.

[RGacky3]

Are you not an Anarcho-Syndicalist then? Anarcho-Syndicalists claim that there can be no proletarian state.


Not specifically, I think calling something a proletarian state is meaningless unless it actually has a proletarian democratic structure to back it up.


I said apathy towards the history of class struggle.


Ok, well your wrong.


You don't seem to respect anything other than social democratic reformism.

And yes, Marx and Lenin are dead. Proudhon and Bakurin are dead. Do you ignore them as well?


I don't ignore them, but I don't follow them either, nor do I support implimenting clearly failed theories.

I repect plenty of different socialist thought.


Why did it take all this effort just to get you to elaborate on what you said? :closedeyes:

Now that I've seen the way how you argue (which is through claims and not evidence) I will not bother wasting my time with this anymore. I am beginning to see your true colors.


It did'nt take me this long to elaborate, you just can't comprehend sentances.

The evidence they failed is ... well ... look around.


Actually what I was demonstrating is that historically, anarchists have held a false conscious, and have the tendency to organize counter revolutions against the proletarian people.


Thats totally wrong. The Anarchists were not the ones stripping the soviets of any power whatsoever and not giving them back ever.

All you were demonstrating was that the Makhovists did some war crimes, and if your judging that way (morally), then the Bolsheviks crimes would definately outway them.


You are just too much. "somedeadguyism" isn't hyperbole to you?


Not at all, Leninism, Marxism-Leninism, Maoism, Trotskyism, are all somedeadguyism, that says something.