Poll: Why hasn't the Revleft achieved our goal of Communism?

[Aflameoffreedom]

This thread is for critically assessing our failures, and for sharing our views on what our biggest enemies are. History must be assessed with context in mind but none the less,

Why haven't we reached Communism and have had it for say 50 years? Between 1800 and now?

1) Revolutionary Left infighting

2) The involvement of the State in achieving Communism

3) Socialism in One Country

4) The bourgeois globally with the weapon of Capitalism has just been too powerful (No one likes admitting their enemy has been stronger)

5) Propaganda failures, our ideologies being made to mean something else by mainstream medias. In the USA how Obama is a 'Socialist'...WTF

6) God/Satan hates us

7) Most humans are ignorant self-destructive idiots

8) Other predominate reason for not achieving/maintaining Communism, Discuss

[Bostana]

First off this forum is for learning and chatting among Comrades. We cannot take D.C. with a Computer.

Second, there is no Socialism in one Country that is currently taking place in any country.
Third, on number 6. No such thing.
Fourth, You have two seven's

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Are you serious on No.6?

[Krano]

Because Karl Marx was a Revisionist.

[Revolutionary_Marxist]

Well I would say the reason we have not achieved communism is largely due to the strength of the international bourgeoisie nations. As an Marxist Leninist I believe that Socialism needs to be achieved in one country first so it can serve as platform to support international revolutions, but this should be a rather fast process not a slow one.

[Pretty Flaco]

7) Most humans are ignorant self-destructive idiots

7) Other predominate reason for not achieving/maintaining Communism, Discuss

i pick #7

[Ostrinski]

None of these options.

The reason why we haven't achieved communism is because the bourgeoisie is the most adaptive and pragmatic ruling class that has ever existed. They are constantly revolutionizing the instruments and relations of production and changing the face of the system itself, making it hard to revolutionarily respond to.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

There are 2 main reasons for this in my opinion.

1. Counter-revolutionary and imperialist attack on socialist societies. This is seen throughout history. As soon as the Bolsheviks took power in Russia they faced counter-revolutionary attack, imperialist intervention, civil war, etc. The July 26th Movement in Cuba, once in power, faced counter-revolutionary attack, imperialist attack (the Bay of Pigs), and near nuclear war. The Sandinistas in Nicaragua faced counter-revolutionary attack from the Contras who were backed by the imperialist United States. The Paris Commune was crushed by capitalists. In Grenada the New Jewel Movement and Maurice Bishop were attacked by the United States and taken out of power. Salvador Allende in Chile was overthrown by counter-revolutionaries with the help of the United States. If the revolution wasn't crushed, it was so violently attacked it was deformed from the damage and became authoritarian and not socialist. THIS HAS BEEN THE MAIN CAUSE OF FAILURE!

2. Authoritarian and abusive leaders such as Stalin.
Again, though, their rise can be credited somewhat to the imperialist and counter-revolutionary attacks on these societies.

[Ostrinski]

2. Authoritarian and abusive leaders such as Stalin.
Again, though, their rise can be credited somewhat to the imperialist and counter-revolutionary attacks on these societies.Authoritarian leaders (states) cannot sufficiently maintain their power without a strong ruling class to enable them, so I'd say the degeneration of the proletarian dictatorship is the real cause of something like this.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Authoritarian leaders (states) cannot sufficiently maintain their power without a strong ruling class to enable them, so I'd say the degeneration of the proletarian dictatorship is the real cause of something like this.

I would agree

[Rafiq]

Because they didn't have the same Ideas as me and were all immoral revisionists. Ideas make history and come before matter. Greedy folk became revisionists because they are literally Satan, and they de purifyed Stalin's teachings.

Hoxha noted this when he was taking a shit in: Memiors of Hoxha's brown stained pants, Volume VI, Chapter 17 pp. 54

[Искра]

Satan doesn't hate us. Satan listens to RABM.

Awz4XE7S49E

[Caj]

I blame the Trots!

[Deicide]

It was the revissshhhionistss! If only Comrade Stalin didn't die.. Comrade Stalin and Comrade Hoxha would of implemented Socialism in one country in every country via national liberation struggles.

Beards would of been banned world-wide!

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Authoritarian leaders (states) cannot sufficiently maintain their power without a strong ruling class to enable them, so I'd say the degeneration of the proletarian dictatorship is the real cause of something like this.

Assuming there was a proletarian dictatorship to begin with...

[Ostrinski]

Assuming there was a proletarian dictatorship to begin with...Well he mentioned Stalin and I do think Russia had a dotp

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Well he mentioned Stalin and I do think Russia had a dotp

I though Left Communists rejected the possibility of Stalin's Russia being a dotp because all the workplaces were controlled by Party officials (or such along those lines to my knowledge).

[Ostrinski]

I though Left Communists rejected the possibility of Stalin's Russia being a dotp because all the workplaces were controlled by Party officials (or such along those lines to my knowledge).Not during Stalin, only the first couple years after the revolution.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Not during Stalin, only the first couple years after the revolution.

I would agree to a certain extent (maybe not years)

[Ostrinski]

A little less than two, actually.

[Caj]

I would say Russia was a DotP for maybe half a year. Workers' control existed from November 1917 until June 1918 at the latest.


A little less than two, actually.

What happened after two years?

[Comrade Samuel]

1,4,5,7 good call not actualy making a poll because there are multiple reasons, I doubt anyone would say there is only one.

[Ostrinski]

You're probably right Caj, but I'm not going to give an exact number. But I don't think degeneration is characterized singular actions or events, but is a process that started as soon as it isolated and became visible after about a half year.

[Grenzer]

I would say Russia was a DotP for maybe half a year. Workers' control existed from November 1917 until June 1918 at the latest.


That's pretty much how I see it. I would say that the dictatorship of the proletariat existed, but it wasn't a socialist revolution in content(although it had the potential to become so with the spread of revolution). Didn't the number of proletarians go from like 6,000,000 to a little over 1,000,000 over the course of the civil war? I'm not sure what the population of Russia was, but isn't that like 1% of the population? The basis for the proletarian dictatorship simply didn't exist after that, so I wouldn't blame the dissolving democracy on the Bolsheviks themselves. It pretty much became a bureaucratic dictatorship by default after that(not bringing up the possibility of it just remaining a bourgeois state for the purpose of this discussion). By the time the basis for proletarian rule materialized, the Stalinists were already fully entrenched.

I'm curious about looking into DNZ's idea of peasant patriomonialism as being an impetus for the cult of personality around Stalin. As far as I'm aware, the kind of pseudo-religious zealotry we see surrounding Stalin among his followers, both then and now, didn't really exist in regards to the leaders of the DDR. The fact that later Soviet leaders didn't have such a following, during which time the fSU was far more industrialized, seems to give some credence to this. In fact, when you look at all the pseudo-communist religions around figures like Stalin, Hoxha, and Mao; you'll see that they were all leaders of countries which had a large peasant population.

[Positivist]

I agree with Anti-Capitalist, the bourgiose backed counterrevolution, and resulting civil wars allowed overly aggressive, authoritarian elements to seize dictatorial power in revolutionary situations.

[Aflameoffreedom]

I corrected having two number 7's haha, also number 6 is a joke.

[Geiseric]

my guess, at least for America, is that juggalos, who are the would-be communists, have all been taken hold of by the juggalo ideology, thus rendered incapible of being part of teh class struggle.

That and purges.

[Aflameoffreedom]

I know a fair amount of Anarchist Communist history and theory but I am learning more about Marxism, Marxism-Leninism, Stalinism, Trotskyism, Maoism and other Communist schools of thought. Only have been mention of a dictatorship of the proletariat with the Soviet Union which was hijacked by the Party which falsely claimed to be working in the Proletariats' interests on this thread. The people here stating Communism hasn't been achieved because of a failed dictatorship of the proletariat, did it fail with the Soviet Union as with Vietnam and Cuba for similar reasons? (both Vietnam and Cuba having never reached pure Communism)

[Caj]

I know a fair amount of Anarchist Communist history and theory but I am learning more about Marxism, Marxism-Leninism, Stalinism, Trotskyism, Maoism and other Communist schools of thought. Only have been mention of a dictatorship of the proletariat with the Soviet Union which was hijacked by the Party which falsely claimed to be working in the Proletariats' interests on this thread. The people here stating Communism hasn't been achieved because of a failed dictatorship of the proletariat, did it fail with the Soviet Union as with Vietnam and Cuba for similar reasons? (both Vietnam and Cuba having never reached pure Communism)

There never were proletarian dictatorships in Vietnam and Cuba. There was one in Russia near the end of 1917, but it degenerated because of its isolation.

[Aflameoffreedom]

I'm thinking to myself now that another reason for failure/ an obstacle is lack of international solidarity in the struggle for Communism. Masters the ruling class are at turning the working class against each other but also into feeling apathy for members of the same class fighting close to the exact same fight in just another place surrounded by borders. If only the First International was alive to this day!
International organisations always have their drawbacks but if only every Prole could unite to crush capitalism all at once just like how the capitalists unite and pounce on any sign of anarchy or communism and destroy it completely from showing the world its potential.

[Anarpest]

There are lots of reasons, probably. I'm not sure that you could isolate one or two. Ultimately, the consciousness of the majority has not reached the level required for a socialist revolution, and where it has it has generally not been in conditions which allowed it the strength to fight off a rising bureaucracy. More libertarian factions may have changed things if they were stronger, but given that they were never in such a position such is highly hypothetical.

The question is now: How do we achieve the goal of socialism? I'm growing highly pessimistic about the propagandizing of our groups, even though I still take part in it, and we can't rely just on misery to produce a revolution. Still, it is going to take some kind of jolt to encourage revolution again, and I fear that in more impoverished countries uprisings will usually end up tending to turn to Western super-powers for assistance, and indeed that doing so is perfectly reasonable from their viewpoint, so maybe we would need some sort of uprising in the Eurozone, possibly to do with Greece, in order to have some chance? US state and media propaganda seems to have a strong enough hold there that I'm not sure how anything can start off there.
The reason why we haven't achieved communism is because the bourgeoisie is the most adaptive and pragmatic ruling class that has ever existed. They are constantly revolutionizing the instruments and relations of production and changing the face of the system itself, making it hard to revolutionarily respond to. I'm not sure how much the bourgeoisie deserves that praise. Feudal systems and such generally managed to survive for a fair bit longer, and faced the same kinds of uprisings that capitalism has endured only when it was significantly older.

[OHumanista]

1, 3, 4, 5 in parts and dozens of different 8s

1) We are divided, yes, but that alone is not enough reason.
3) In part as it helped stone our greatest chance of revolution. But it doesn't affects us now.
4) The dominant ideas of an era are that of it's ruling class.
5) Capitalist propaganda and a number of self-proclaimed communist groups and individuals that are completely incompetent on that area.
8s) Too many, and I am not in the mood atm to go in-depth on this, so just check some other good posts around the thread and add to what I've said.

[Aflameoffreedom]

We can't rely just on misery to produce a revolution. Still, it is going to take some kind of jolt to encourage revolution again, and I fear that in more impoverished countries uprisings will usually end up tending to turn to Western super-powers for assistance, and indeed that doing so is perfectly reasonable from their viewpoint, so maybe we would need some sort of uprising in the Eurozone, possibly to do with Greece, in order to have some chance? US state and media propaganda seems to have a strong enough hold there that I'm not sure how anything can start off there.

Unfortunately It usually takes some terrible happening that jolts and wakes up an entire country which propels the people into effective insurrectionist action. We must really pay attention when countries cry out they do not want the West involved in their struggle and should support them with propaganda, I feel the most that should be asked for is weapons and supplies to fight their own battle.

Before I die I will definitely do my best to visit Greece, I've been following their struggle since 2008 with the murder of Alexis Grigoropoulos being one of the reasons I became a revleft.

[l'Enfermé]

It's because of beards. Communism failed because of beards. That's why Comrade Hoxha outlawed them.

[Franz Fanonipants]

none of the above

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

There never were proletarian dictatorships in Vietnam and Cuba. There was one in Russia near the end of 1917, but it degenerated because of its isolation.
Wasn't it also because the original proletariat was nearly destroyed during the Russian Civil War?

[Comrade Samuel]

It's because of beards. Communism failed because of beards. That's why Comrade Hoxha outlawed them.

http://thenewworldofthehistory.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/karl_marx_and_friedrich_engels.jpg

I should of known we where doomed to fail from the start!

[Red Rabbit]

I'll go with number 6.

[Hexen]

7) Most humans are ignorant self-destructive idiots

Once again don't fall into this liberal trap of simply blaming humanity ("human nature"), but rather because most people are products of their own capitalist society hence why their ignorant and self-destructive.

[Yuppie Grinder]

There are 2 main reasons for this in my opinion.

1. Counter-revolutionary and imperialist attack on socialist societies. This is seen throughout history. As soon as the Bolsheviks took power in Russia they faced counter-revolutionary attack, imperialist intervention, civil war, etc. The July 26th Movement in Cuba, once in power, faced counter-revolutionary attack, imperialist attack (the Bay of Pigs), and near nuclear war. The Sandinistas in Nicaragua faced counter-revolutionary attack from the Contras who were backed by the imperialist United States. The Paris Commune was crushed by capitalists. In Grenada the New Jewel Movement and Maurice Bishop were attacked by the United States and taken out of power. Salvador Allende in Chile was overthrown by counter-revolutionaries with the help of the United States. If the revolution wasn't crushed, it was so violently attacked it was deformed from the damage and became authoritarian and not socialist. THIS HAS BEEN THE MAIN CAUSE OF FAILURE!

2. Authoritarian and abusive leaders such as Stalin.
Again, though, their rise can be credited somewhat to the imperialist and counter-revolutionary attacks on these societies.
Nice materialist analysis there, bud. Bad things happen because of people you don't like, good things happen because of people you do like. Also, Trots calling Stalinists authoritarian is getting real old.

Capital has yet to exhaust it's potential for growth. When the exhaustion of that growth comes and coincides with a situation of intense class struggle, bourgeois society will die. It's more complicated than a matter of having the right people in charge. That's not the way the real world works.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Nice materialist analysis there, bud. Bad things happen because of people you don't like, good things happen because of people you do like. Also, Trots calling Stalinists authoritarian is getting real old.

Capital has yet to exhaust it's potential for growth. When the exhaustion of that growth comes and coincides with a situation of intense class struggle, bourgeois society will die. It's more complicated than a matter of having the right people in charge. That's not the way the real world works.

1. I am not a Trot. I am actually a council communist and left communist
2. I agree with your analysis.
3. To pretend that counter-revolutionary activity is not a factor is very ahistorical.

[Prometeo liberado]

First off we could never have a socialist USA, or anywhere else for that matter.
Can you image a year after the revolution having to sit in congress and listen to all the left-coms speeches one after the other?
"This is not Socialism!"
"There never has been Socialism!"
"Stalin tried to destroy Socialism in China(yes the same socialism that never existed)"
"Yes the workers are in control but they can't be real workers because then we wouldn't be able to complain. Therefore the workers are not real Socialist!"
It would get so tediously boring that we would all just give it back to the capitalist. Pretty sure.

[Yuppie Grinder]

1. I am not a Trot. I am actually a council communist and left communist
2. I agree with your analysis.
3. To pretend that counter-revolutionary activity is not a factor is very ahistorical.
Your analysis is entirely different from mine, they're really incompatible, and to claim that past attempts at building socialist states failed because of the two reasons you gave, THOSE DARN COUNTER-REVOLUTIONARIES and big bad Stalin, don't match actual history.

[Blake's Baby]

Not often I agree with a Stalinist about anything, but I have to say the utter idealism of some of these posts is... depressing.

How about 'Why hasn't the RevLeft acheived communism?' - because it's not our fucking job. Socialism will be created by the working class not little cliques of revolutionaries. We're not the wheels, we're just some grease in the bearings. Don't mistake your desires for reality or your will for historic destiny because you will become an enemy of the proletariat - and I expect will be consigned to the dustbin of history when the working class begins another revolutionary attempt to destroy capitalism.

Oh, and is it just me, or is jbeard talking shit about things he doesn't understand again?

[Yuppie Grinder]

Not often I agree with a Stalinist about anything, but I have to say the utter idealism of some of these posts is... depressing.

How about 'Why hasn't the RevLeft acheived communism?' - because it's not our fucking job. Socialism will be created by the working class not little cliques of revolutionaries. We're not the wheels, we're just some grease in the bearings. Don't mistake your desires for reality or your will for historic destiny because you will become an enemy of the proletariat - and I expect will be consigned to the dustbin of history when the working class begins another revolutionary attempt to destroy capitalism.

Oh, and is it just me, or is jbeard talking shit about things he doesn't understand again?
OP was referring to the revolutionary left as a whole, not this website.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Your analysis is entirely different from mine, they're really incompatible, and to claim that past attempts at building socialist states failed because of the two reasons you gave, THOSE DARN COUNTER-REVOLUTIONARIES and big bad Stalin, don't match actual history.

I said that I thought those were the two MAIN reasons, not the ONLY reason. If you honestly believe that counter-revolutionary violence and attacks had absolutely nothing to do with the failure of some of these societies than you need to study up on your history.

[Blake's Baby]

OP was referring to the revolutionary left as a whole, not this website.

As was I. I put 'the' RevLeft deliberately. I referred to 'little cliques of revolutionaries', meaning not those here in particular but all the little groups out there hatching plans.

They don't mean ... very much. The working class is stirring - it may not launch a revolutionary attempt in the next few years - I hope it will. We may get another period when the ideologies of capitalism triumph, we may get a period when the revolution is attempted and the forces of reaction crush the attempt, I don't know. In any case, it's not our job as 'revolutionary leftists' to create the revolution, that's the working class's job. Our job is to forge a tool that they can use - the organisation that promotes and agitates and argues for the interests of the proletariat, that is, the revolutionary party.

[Yuppie Grinder]

I said that I thought those were the two MAIN reasons, not the ONLY reason. If you honestly believe that counter-revolutionary violence and attacks had absolutely nothing to do with the failure of some of these societies than you need to study up on your history.
M-L dictatorships grew into liberal states as a response to shifting class dynamics as well as imperialist aggression.
The intense centralization of exclusive economic power was absolutely necessary to protect those nation's against western imperialists, not saying that either's rule was justified. It was in the best interest of Stalin and the like to do whatever they could to prevent subordination by foreign capitalists, and the drastic measures (organic reactions) they took to build an infrastructure that could endure imperialist aggression and even compete with it. Stalin's own words illustrate this well, "We are fifty or a hundred years behind the advanced countries. We must make good this distance in ten years. Either we do it, or they will crush us."

After said infrastructure was built, M-L dictatorships were faced with a different situation. Liberalization and even cooperation with private capitalists of the west was know in their best interest.
You're really in no place to be condescending me, by the way.

[Yuppie Grinder]

As was I. I put 'the' RevLeft deliberately. I referred to 'little cliques of revolutionaries', meaning not those here in particular but all the little groups out there hatching plans.

They don't mean ... very much. The working class is stirring - it may not launch a revolutionary attempt in the next few years - I hope it will. We may get another period when the ideologies of capitalism triumph, we may get a period when the revolution is attempted and the forces of reaction crush the attempt, I don't know. In any case, it's not our job as 'revolutionary leftists' to create the revolution, that's the working class's job. Our job is to forge a tool that they can use - the organisation that promotes and agitates and argues for the interests of the proletariat, that is, the revolutionary party.
sorry my bad
i agree with you by the way

[Blake's Baby]

I probably wasn't being clear, then took your helpful correction as a challenge when none was intended. So it's me that should be apologising, primarily for being tetchy when you were trying to help. My apologies; it was bad-tempered of me. I have to admit, it's 2.30am and I really should have gone to bed some time ago. Perhaps tiredness is making me irritable.

[Yuppie Grinder]

No worries.

[TrotskistMarx]

The real reason and cause of why the USA and many many other countries haven't been able to see a socialist workers party in the government is television. Jim Morrison said that he who controls the media, controls the minds of the society. And the first thing leftists should do in order to see a socialist party in the government is destroying the strongest 7 capitalist TV news channels which are CNN news, FOX news, ABC news, CBS news, NBC news, Univision and Telemundo. We need first to destroy those 7 TV channels in order to destroy the wall that is blocking socialism in America. Those 7 news channels are like a virus, a big wall, a big impediment that is really the blocker of socialism. Another way that could be like a competition to those 7 capitalist TV stations, could be for the left to find a way to get millions of dollars, in order to create a brand new socialist TV news media and station in America with the same technology and power of Russia Today News Network (RT) http://www.rt.com along with creating a couple of socialist newspapers. That would be an alternative competition for those 7 capitalist TV news stations, and marxist newspapers that would competition to the main capitalist newspapers of the country such as The New York Times, Washington Post, etc.. Until the left doesn't do that the right-wing traditional political parties (Democrats and Republicans) will always be more popular than socialist parties.


.



This thread is for critically assessing our failures, and for sharing our views on what our biggest enemies are. History must be assessed with context in mind but none the less,

Why haven't we reached Communism and have had it for say 50 years? Between 1800 and now?

1) Revolutionary Left infighting

2) The involvement of the State in achieving Communism

3) Socialism in One Country

4) The bourgeois globally with the weapon of Capitalism has just been too powerful (No one likes admitting their enemy has been stronger)

5) Propaganda failures, our ideologies being made to mean something else by mainstream medias. In the USA how Obama is a 'Socialist'...WTF

6) God/Satan hates us

7) Most humans are ignorant self-destructive idiots

8) Other predominate reason for not achieving/maintaining Communism, Discuss

[Prometeo liberado]

[QUOTOh, and is it just me, or is jbeard talking shit about things he doesn't understand againE][/QUOTE]

I must have struck a nerve of truth here. It doesn't take much understanding to parrot cetain left-coms here.:D

[daft punk]

Apparently it's all my fault, for bringing politics into threads. Politics has to be avoided as it is sectarianism by another name. Marx invented it, he was the first sectarian. He sected against the anarchists. It all went downhill from there. Trotsky turned it into a religion. Only Stalin was sane. Stalin or some obscure person standing on the sidelines saying Lenin was a capitalist. Best not to discuss politics and then everyone will be happy, and happy people make happy revolutions.

[The Idler]

The main obstacle has been the Bolshevik break from Socialism/Communism.

Brace yourself...

[Ostrinski]

The main obstacle has been the Bolshevik break from Socialism/Communism.

Brace yourself...Why don't you just change your name to The Idealist

[Caj]

I must have struck a nerve of truth here. It doesn't take much understanding to parrot cetain left-coms here.:D

It takes even less to parrot M-Ls.

[Art Vandelay]

As was I. I put 'the' RevLeft deliberately. I referred to 'little cliques of revolutionaries', meaning not those here in particular but all the little groups out there hatching plans.

They don't mean ... very much. The working class is stirring - it may not launch a revolutionary attempt in the next few years - I hope it will. We may get another period when the ideologies of capitalism triumph, we may get a period when the revolution is attempted and the forces of reaction crush the attempt, I don't know. In any case, it's not our job as 'revolutionary leftists' to create the revolution, that's the working class's job. Our job is to forge a tool that they can use - the organisation that promotes and agitates and argues for the interests of the proletariat, that is, the revolutionary party.

I agree with your first post on this page entirely, but just wanted to add that at the very least I hope this happens. I mean obviously I want to see the revolution succeed but I honestly do not think I could stay sane throughout a period when capitalist ideologies see another resurgence. I would much rather go out in a blaze of revolutionary fire then end my own life cause I see no hope for revolution. I feel like I may end up like Berkman losing all hope and ending it the day before the next revolutionary wave.

[The Idler]

You can't blow up a social relation.

[NoPasaran1936]

One simply does not bring about revolution without nopasaran1936 being involved.

[Blake's Baby]

Oh, and is it just me, or is jbeard talking shit about things he doesn't understand againE]

I must have struck a nerve of truth here. It doesn't take much understanding to parrot cetain left-coms here.:D

You make a pile of shit and call it Left Communism, to paraphrase Tacitus. All you do is go 'squawk squawk, it's all useless, workers are useless and don't exist, that's Left Communism that is'.

It's annoying not because you hit a nerve, because I can't even make sense of what you're saying, but precisley because it doesn't make any sense. It's like me saying 'yeah, Stalinists think the Earth is flat, in fact that's all they think, fucking flat earth Stalinists'. There is no connection between what you say, and the reason you claim to be saying it.

So either, you're a very confused person and need to be patiently corrected by someone with a better attitude than me, or you're a moron, a troll and a liar (this is what I believe) who needs to be publically called out on the fact that you talk shit.

[roy]

The "Left" doesn't achieve socialism: the workers do.

[black magick hustla]

[QUOTOh, and is it just me, or is jbeard talking shit about things he doesn't understand againE]

I must have struck a nerve of truth here. It doesn't take much understanding to parrot cetain left-coms here.:D[/QUOTE]

ugh. you are honestly a simpleton.

[Mr. Natural]

I choose none of the above, and insist this and other left sites should be developing revolutionary organizing processes.

But that would require comrades to engage the organization of life, community, revolutionary processes and communism. There is a universal pattern of organization by which matter (people are matter) self-organizes into life on Earth that revolutionaries must learn and employ.

But first comrades must engage and disempower a sort of consciousness barrier that prevents them from considering and seeing deep organization. It seems everyone is stuck in capitalism's reductionist system viewing life and society as a collection of things, while we need to understand and employ life's organization of its "things." This site and humanity need to "come to life," in other words.

Capitalism is a now-universal (global) system whose organization is opposed to life and has now enveloped life on Earth in all its forms--humanand non-human. People now live in a capitalist ecosystem and think within a mental arena of capitalist institutions and organization. We have become parts and agents of The System.

There are new sciences of organization that look at deep organization, and the theoretical physicist, Fritjof Capra, has created a conceptual triangle that portrays life's (thus society's) universal pattern of organization. This triangle offers us the mental tool that potentially enables regular people to create various revolutionary, grassroots forms of community opposed to capitalism.

That we actually could begin to develop a viable materialist dialectic and praxis at Revleft, though, will tend to be ignored or opposed by those whose minds have been effectively shaped by The System.

My red-green, "let's get organized" best.