What I am

[Red Louisiana]

I saw the RedStar fella criticize Leninists/Stalinists(whatever) for being dogmatic; follwers of a dogma long gone, gone with the state capitalist USSR

I agree, Those who uphold Lenin, Stalin, whoever over the struggle are a dying and regressive breed.

I've always considered Lenin admirable because he was a great Marxist, a man who, along with his Bolshevik Party, eliminated Bourgeois dominance from Russia, and instituted a revolutionary socialist state.

But, obviously they made mistakes,

Stalin's Regime(although I doubt Trotsky would've been better *shrug* who knows)

Generally, post-stalin USSR.

Why so much nostalgia, so many glossied lies and excuses?

We must LEARN, comrades, from their mistakes, improve ourselves as we advance!

Lenin was no Leninist, he was a MARXIST.

[S.B.]

Comrade RL


"I've always considered Lenin admirable because he was a great Marxist, a man who, along with his Bolshevik Party, eliminated Bourgeois dominance from Russia" ... eliminated? ... or merely replaced Bourgeois dominance with their own repressive regime?

"Lenin was no Leninist, he was a MARXIST" ... really? ... how could Lenin be anything other than a Leninist? ... or Che be anything other than a Guevarist? ... while both Lenin and Che studied the writings of Marx and Engels,they each came away from such studies with an individualistic approach to those matters which Marx espoused.

There has been a current tendency among socialists given to the cult of Che to analyze and categorize Che first as one thing then another,some point out the fact that Che at one time signed his correspondence as the 2nd Stalin in an effort to make Che out to have been a Stalinist.

Then there are those who exert that Che was himself a Maoist due to his abandonment of the Soviet Union for that of Mao and Peking,as well as his fervent advocance of armed resistence through means of guerilla forces.

This brings us to those which propose that Che was a Trotskyite because of his belief in worldwide revolution,at the end of the day one must realize and accept Che as a revolutionary socialist which considered all these schismatic contentions among fellow socialists to be nonsensical in that they distract one from the true socialist task,that being the destruction of capitalism at all costs and by any and all means.

I must say that I found the title of this tread somewhat amusing,"What I am" ... as though a person is a thing ... this is utter foolishness in that people are far too complex as to be cast in a single mold.

I myself have studied many philosophies and ideologies insomuch that I prefer not to mention any names in particular,besides,its all too easy for one to simply spit out a list of popular thinkers as means to validate their claims,which in turn is merely the ego striving for recognition.

In regards to my physicality I am simply a temporary bio-chemical existence with an initial conception and birth which is destined by nature for death and decay,as for the realms of mentality I,like all others,am in a constant state of flux by which I exert my given capacities for thought in an effort to readjust according to the most recent data which my own inner constitution deems worthy of assimilation.


K.S.B.

[Red Louisiana]

... eliminated? ... or merely replaced Bourgeois dominance with their own repressive regime?

Revolutions are not privvy to dreams of bourgeois republican ideals realized along with a workers' republic.

The fact is, the tactics the Bolsheviks used to ensure Proletarian rule were justified - media is a weapon of class war, just as guns are.



... really? ... how could Lenin be anything other than a Leninist? ... or Che be anything other than a Guevarist? ... while both Lenin and Che studied the writings of Marx and Engels,they each came away from such studies with an individualistic approach to those matters which Marx espoused.

Could you tell me, please, where Marx designated a plan for revolution? I doubt it. Marx new(and wrote), as we all should realize, that proletarian revolutions are different from region to region - he believed that the workers would hatch out a means to power; he was correct.


There has been a current tendency among socialists given to the cult of Che to analyze and categorize Che first as one thing then another,some point out the fact that Che at one time signed his correspondence as the 2nd Stalin in an effort to make Che out to have been a Stalinist.

I don't think Che was a "stalinist," his tenure as Economics minister showed nothing close to Stalin's policies, the same goes with Comrade Castro. I take actions over words, you see.


Then there are those who exert that Che was himself a Maoist due to his abandonment of the Soviet Union for that of Mao and Peking,as well as his fervent advocance of armed resistence through means of guerilla forces.

Che was heavily influenced by the Asian Revolutionists, yes.


This brings us to those which propose that Che was a Trotskyite because of his belief in worldwide revolution,at the end of the day one must realize and accept Che as a revolutionary socialist which considered all these schismatic contentions among fellow socialists to be nonsensical in that they distract one from the true socialist task,that being the destruction of capitalism at all costs and by any and all means.

Again, the problem with division. Che Believed in a Latin American revolution, that was his goal, his revolutionary theories were based on just that, Latin Revolution.


I must say that I found the title of this tread somewhat amusing,"What I am" ... as though a person is a thing ... this is utter foolishness in that people are far too complex as to be cast in a single mold.

Jesus , dude, Don't get all cliche "philosopher" on me: I HATE that.

I know what I am, no matter what you, a person who does not know me, says :)


I myself have studied many philosophies and ideologies insomuch that I prefer not to mention any names in particular,besides,its all too easy for one to simply spit out a list of popular thinkers as means to validate their claims,which in turn is merely the ego striving for recognition.

When did I label myself a strain of something.

Insulting me isn't very nice, Mr. SB, take your cliche liberal self from the high horse you currently sit on and try to be more kind - I wasn't "striving for recognition," i was posting something I feel is important to our cause - Our marxist tool of self-criticism.


In regards to my physicality I am simply a temporary bio-chemical existence with an initial conception and birth which is destined by nature for death and decay,as for the realms of mentality I,like all others,am in a constant state of flux by which I exert my given capacities for thought in an effort to readjust according to the most recent data which my own inner constitution deems worthy of assimilation.


You've basically said, in a condescending manner, that we cannot recognize our own beliefs, because, in the end, there will always be an a-hole to call you an attention-whore and explain that we're all too complex for the internet, so all posts are for nothing, save ones made by the a-hole to tell us that wonderful fact...

I for one just think you're an a-hole :)