What does this forum do?

[W1N5T0N]

Good day.

Just wanted to say that I believe that this forum seems to be mainly there for having some petty party struggles, creating your own fantasy "groups" and "factions" and then arguing who was "scientifically" right in interpreting Marxism.

People argue about Stalin, Mao and Tito as if they had been there and under their rule in the time, while im pretty sure the people who do this on this forum consist mostly of westerners who have a revolutionary crush on these militaristic leaders. Why, i dont know. But none of these people take their literature with a pinch of salt - "Oh look, The CCP/Stalin/Lenin/Propaganda ministry" wrote this - It must be true!

They start a thread "what has comrade stalin done for us" or "The soviet union was a true workers state". Then they get all excited on how great soviet russia was etc, then the "anti-Stalinists" come (something people can actually agree on) and tell everybody "Wow stalin was such a bad guy, killed a lot of people etc" and then get rep points for standing against the bad stalinists.

How does this even matter in the real world? Arguing to and fro about the Soviet Union (which has crumbled) and Authoritarian leaders (who are dead) will not actually advance any leftist cause.

Lets face it - nobody likes all this retro-marxist crap, and instead of looking to 21st century problems of a highly advanced urbanised culture, many turn back and say: "Wow, great, lets embellish 20th century revolutionary ideals which were adapted to backward, semi-feudal culturally isolated countries!"

And when anybody comes along with anything vaguely new, they are labeled bourgeois reactionary class traitors etc (you know the deal).


Im asking myself: Why bother? What do these people contribute at all just by staying in their isolated little views? Arent you people just as "conservative" and intolerant as the people who you want to oust from power?

When i see what a lot of these sad "wannabe revolutionaries" post, i wanna tell them:
Take a good look at all the utter rubbish I see a lot of you churning out on a steady basis and actually THINK before you POST. The word "Stalin" and "Mao" will literally make people stop listening to you in any serious conversation about today's problems.


So I hope that all the people who keep going on the Stalinist/Soviet Union threads can realize that it is much more productive to just ignore these commie-conservatives and instead make new threads on the 21st century situation of workers and how to solve real problems. Posting again and again elaborate and factual replies on why Soviet Union failed - nobody cares, really. Been there, done that, and Stalinists refuse to acknowledge these "western conspiracy theories" - so why bother?!

To outsiders, im sure this faction squabbling and pseudo-scientific talking makes it look like the left is actually not a thread to anybody at the moment - they are too busy fighting amongst each other!

[Revolution starts with U]

Why is it that the vast majority of people on this site are anti "great leader," and yet we have to listen to people say things like "this forum is mainly for... people (to) argue about Stalin and Tito..." ????

I'll tell you why; people focus on the negatives, often no matter how much positive is right in their face.

EDIT: other than that I agree with your point, pretty much.

[Railyon]

Roosterism, as based mainly on the teachings of Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels and Rooster, is the highest qualitative stage of Marxism so far and is the guiding ideology of revolutionaries the world over who carry forward the fight for a world free of all class distinctions, all exploitative production relations, all oppressive social relations, and all corresponding, reactionary ideas - the communist world of the future.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Roosterism, as based mainly on the teachings of Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels and Rooster, is the highest qualitative stage of Marxism so far and is the guiding ideology of revolutionaries the world over who carry forward the fight for a world free of all class distinctions, all exploitative production relations, all oppressive social relations, and all corresponding, reactionary ideas - the communist world of the future.

Speak the truth, fellow Roosterist!

[W1N5T0N]

@NewLeft:
Ive been on this forum for quite a while, and as much as I would like to cite all the examples for my claims, the list would be too long. Just search anything in the search bar with "Stalin" "Soviet Union", look at what kind of polls are asked, look how the arguments on this forum on this forum all appear circular and rethorical (the fronts are clear, there is no actual dialectic anymore), et voila you have your examples.

I hope this satisfies you query?

[l'Enfermé]

Because a small amount of great-leader-worshipping Stalinists and quasi-Stalinists post a lot and hijack every thread, this doesn't mean that we're all idiots.

...though maybe I am an idiot, perhaps I shouldn't speak for others, because I still don't understand the real reason I was restricted.

[Deicide]

The roosterist group is probably the best group on the forum for a quiet, serious discussion.

[Comrade Samuel]

So....you belive just because we line up with the beliefs of people from before our time and we still make an effort to participate in, contribute to, debate about and overall live in the modern world we are all Stalin worshipping tankies who never leave the safety of our own homes even though we Marx-leninists (who don't do any of that by the way) only make up a fraction of this site?

Sir, you are deranged.

[Franz Fanonipants]

because communists are boring and the anarchists are all secret liberals/chimos

[W1N5T0N]

@Borz sorry if it came over as me regarding other members as idiots - i do not. However, my point was that quite a bit of discussion on this forum seems to either go in circles or re-evaluation of soviet union. Just saying if the Stalinists/ML's/Maoists etc hijack a thread or make a new one - isolate them, don't react to the reactionaries. And it seems like they are not so much a minority as one might think

[Delenda Carthago]

I consider(ed?) this forum a nice tool for the communication and information transmit between people in far places, something vital in our era. The ideal for me would be the issues that that would be between people who give struggles in real life, everyone with its own way never the less. But unfortunatly it seems sometimes that people just want to discuss about things that have just a gossip meaning into it.

Lets all try to give our best selfs to this, as it could really be a really nice advertise for communist ideas. I think we have to start taking ourselves a lil more seriously.

[W1N5T0N]

Sir, you are deranged.

Welcome to the club, amigo.

[Drosophila]

I hardly ever see what you describe happening, in fact, I see the exact opposite.

[W1N5T0N]

Hardly ever? Maybe i've been on the wrong forum then all this time- pardon me!

[NorwegianCommunist]

I think it's fun to discuss past leaders of socialist countries, not because I worship them, but I think it is fun to learn about them! =)

[Kronsteen]

This forum is like an old fashioned lightbulb. Most of its energy is wasted in producing heat, but the relatively small amount of light it gives is essential to what we want to do. That's probably true of all forums on all subjects.

To put it another way: There's a high quantity of noise, but a high quality of signal. So perhaps you need to install better noise filters :-).

[Omsk]

I like how your post finished up with the : "Oh those damn ML's!"

I remember you,you were a beginner Trot which tried to debate,but i see you gave up,or forgot Trotskyism.Which is good,good for you comrade.It seems Rev-Left did do something right.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

I like how your post finished up with the : "Oh those damn ML's!"

I remember you,you were a beginner Trot which tried to debate,but i see you gave up,or forgot Trotskyism.Which is good,good for you comrade.It seems Rev-Left did do something right.

He's probably mad at us because we shitted on his god, Trotsky.

[gorillafuck]

what does any discussion forum do, really?

[Zukunftsmusik]

what does any discussion forum do, really?

bring out the worst in people...?

[The Machine]

I think the real question is what do you do for this forum.

[Franz Fanonipants]

I think the real question is what you do do for this forum.

boo this man

[The Machine]

:/

[Drosophila]

Hardly ever? Maybe i've been on the wrong forum then all this time- pardon me!

Yeah, I don't see it. In fact, I think in the span of two months there's been one thread started solely to defend Stalin. Many threads around here are started by trolls, or they're started by people simply asking questions. People tend to reply with stupid things, whether they be Trotskyists, Marxist-Leninists, Left-Communists, or anarchists.

[RGacky3]

Honestly there are mayn good threads that are started, about real issues, and unfortunately so many of them turn into rediculous propertarian arguments, or arguments about early 20th century Russia, neither of which really matter.

I could start a thread on the effects of the wheat market on SubSaharan Africa and it end up being about 1919 Russia or the "non aggression principle," the sad thing is, the origional thread might attract a few posters, but the latter deviations will bring everyone out.

[Veovis]

This forum's primary purpose is to give us an idea of how big we'll need to make the gulags.

[l'Enfermé]

@Borz sorry if it came over as me regarding other members as idiots - i do not. However, my point was that quite a bit of discussion on this forum seems to either go in circles or re-evaluation of soviet union. Just saying if the Stalinists/ML's/Maoists etc hijack a thread or make a new one - isolate them, don't react to the reactionaries. And it seems like they are not so much a minority as one might think
Well, they are a minority, really. This forum has thousands of members, only a minority of whom are Stalinists("MLs", "Hoxhaists", etc) and quasi-Stalinists(Maoists, Titoists, "Juche"ists, etc), however, the Stalinists post so much stupid around here that they bored everyone else and no one posts anymore, thus we are left with Stalinists trolling everyone and anti-Stalinists half-heartedly arguing with them.

[hatzel]

You know what I love? How the OP was all "doesn't it suck when all the Stalinoids and Maoites and Trotskyniks overwhelm all teh freds with their 'my historical leader was better than your historical leader!'-crap as if it's important to contemporary struggle?"...and then look, Stalinoids coming in to take the opportunity to badmouth Trotsky. Epic lulzzz...

(FYI I put three Z's on lulz because that's the universally acknowledged symbol for being asleep, for example after boring stuff happenzzz)

[Zealot]

Really? Marxist-Leninists hardly ever start threads just to boast about how great Stalin or the Soviet Union was, it's usually other people who start threads to rant about how bad it was. We merely join in the discussion. And quite frankly this seems to be just another one of these troll threads to rant about MLs and point fingers. No matter how much you may hate it, Stalin, Mao, Trotsky etc. are a significant part of the worker's movement who won't be forgotten any time soon and Revleft is probably the best place on the internet to discuss these things without trolls throwing out red herrings and straw-mans (although that does happen here but not as often as, say, reddit, which one Comrade has recently learnt).


How does this even matter in the real world? Arguing to and fro about the Soviet Union (which has crumbled) and Authoritarian leaders (who are dead) will not actually advance any leftist cause.

I don't know about you but for most people Revleft is probably not a very big part of their real world life. It's not like Revleft is a bastion of the international worker's movement or the Comintern or anything. Just a place to discuss history, theory etc.

[Jimmie Higgins]

This is a discussion forum and so people discuss. Personally it doesn't bother me because that's what I come here for - if I don't care about a topic, I ignore it.

Organizing is what I do in the real world and frankly I'm a bit skeptical of "internet-organizing" efforts to do much more than turn out an audience for some protest or event.

There are things I think a website like this could do to be more appealing to people new to the left or who are interested in revolutionary politics, but it seems like the members and mods here do want this to be a mainly discussion site specifically for already revolutionary leftists and so I'm fine with that. There are few opportunities for this much left-wing diversity of opinion to get together so while I think in general revolutionaries need to be more outward in orientation and attracting all the people radicalizing or questioning the system due to the crisis, having a place for these sometimes incestuous and inward debates and discussions can also valuable.

[Omsk]

It's good we have racist nationalists like Borz to save us from utter chaos and 'horrible discussion'. In truth,the numbers of the ML's are quite low,it's the infantile bunch that has the upper hand.At least for now.

[W1N5T0N]

I like how your post finished up with the : "Oh those damn ML's!"

I remember you,you were a beginner Trot which tried to debate,but i see you gave up,or forgot Trotskyism.Which is good,good for you comrade.It seems Rev-Left did do something right.

I don't remember you, sadly, or ever having a discussion with you.
And i was never a "trot"...I actually putting myself in a box like that.
And yes, i guess revleft did do something- make me realize that squabbling over dead leaders isn't really very productive.

[hatzel]

I'm going to strategically preempt the childish inter-personal mudslinging I see coming over the horizon...

Stop it, please.

[The Young Pioneer]

To answer OP's question about what the use of this forum is:

I use to it learn world history, primarily.

'Cause the US sure did a bang up job of teaching me anything. :rolleyes:

Though, even here, gotta take "fact" with a grain of salt, I agree with you.

[l'Enfermé]

It's good we have racist nationalists like Borz to save us from utter chaos and 'horrible discussion'. In truth,the numbers of the ML's are quite low,it's the infantile bunch that has the upper hand.At least for now.
I'm a racist nationalist because I oppose Soviet imperialism and support national liberation and anti-colonial struggles? That's a new one. I guess the guy that was all "Pol Pot is innocent" and "Chechens were all brigands and criminals and everyone hates them"(Putin would be proud of this guy)and that's why Stalin's policy of forced deportation, ethnic cleansing and genocide is justified is not a racist...what a fucking joke you Stalinists are. Maybe back up your allegations and prove that I'm a racist or a nationalist, though I do understand that Stalinists aren't really good when it comes to proof and all.

[Ismail]

But none of these people take their literature with a pinch of salt - "Oh look, The CCP/Stalin/Lenin/Propaganda ministry" wrote this - It must be true!Ironically I've very rarely seen "Stalinists" on RevLeft actually use Soviet sources. I have tons of books from the 8 Nëntori Publishing House (which was the Albanian equivalent of the Soviet Union's Progress Publishers) though, alongside various bourgeois academic works.

And, in fact, this is the biggest problem: very few people actually read books. Sure, some read online books (not a big deal if it's something like the Communist Manifesto or whatever), but there's only so many things that are online. It's hard to have informed debates when the only knowledge one has about things comes from a Google search.

I think this also contributes to the strong ideological eclecticism which is prevalent on RevLeft. As Prairie Fire once said, "Every commie noob thinks that they're the new Lenin. Every red, who's been red for a year or so, thinks that they are the true disciple of Marx, and that they have the ideological 'Holy Grail' of insight that all of the other communists in the movement, who have been red for decades, are missing. It seems to me that very few people come to communism to embrace it; they come to communism hoping to change it. I should know because sadly, I was once among their ranks.... In hindsight, my communist development could have been so much more painless if I had taken into account the four decades of socialist experience that my comrades offered to me. I guess that to truly embrace the theory laid down by Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, etc, you have to actually experience the communist movement. To truly understand the wisdom of the classics, rather than suggesting radical and impractical revisions to them, you need to learn for yourself why your own notions are incorrect, through practical experience and study. To sum up, basically I used to think I knew it all; experience has taught me that I was just another punk commie noob with delusions of grandeur."

[Brosa Luxemburg]

And, in fact, this is the biggest problem: very few people actually read books. Sure, some read online books (not a big deal if it's something like the Communist Manifesto or whatever), but there's only so many things that are online. It's hard to have informed debates when the only knowledge one has about things comes from a Google search.

I think this also contributes to the strong ideological eclecticism which is prevalent on RevLeft. As Prairie Fire once said, "every commie noob thinks that they're the new Lenin."

I second this, Ismail.

[milkmiku]

I though this was a forum for those who "are not one of us" to be talked down to and mocked?

[Omsk]

I'm a racist nationalist because I oppose Soviet imperialism and support national liberation and anti-colonial struggles?

No,you are a racist because you compared the Soviet people with "animals" and called the Red Army soldiers who took part in the combat against the Nazis "animals" . You are a nationalist,and if you remember,and i am sure you do,you revealed that yourself when we talked. So much from a self-proclaimed "Leninist" . You ended up supporting Chechen nationalists and anti-Bolsheviks.


That's a new one. I guess the guy that was all "Pol Pot is innocent" and "Chechens were all brigands and criminals and everyone hates them"(Putin would be proud of this guy)

Who are these "guys" ? Why are you getting them into this discussion?What is the relevance of that? The first 'guy' you mentioned,if i remember,said that the US bombs caused a lot of deaths in Cambodia.Which is not false. I won't go into wether he defended the ultra-revisionist and Maoist Pol Pot.


Maybe back up your allegations and prove that I'm a racist or a nationalist, though I do understand that Stalinists aren't really good when it comes to proof and all.

Oh really? Most of my points in both that debate were backed up with something,unlike yours which were a mess of nationalism and a poor display of emotionalized lies and national-proudness.In fact,the better part of the people you attack here are actually quite good when it comes to defending their points. (Although there are some which are not,obviously.)

However,i am inclined toward ignoring you,because we already talked about this,and my points above were proved by your own posts,and now that you are where you belong,debate is pointless,seing what a nationalist fanatic you remain.

[hatzel]

Oh, well will you look at that...


I'm going to strategically preempt the childish inter-personal mudslinging I see coming over the horizon...

I MUST BE PSYCHIC!!!

[l'Enfermé]

No,you are a racist because you compared the Soviet people with "animals" and called the Red Army soldiers who took part in the combat against the Nazis "animals" . You are a nationalist,and if you remember,and i am sure you do,you revealed that yourself when we talked. So much from a self-proclaimed "Leninist" . You ended up supporting Chechen nationalists and anti-Bolsheviks.

"Soviet people" are not a race, or an ethnic group, even though Stalin and his successors tried their best to Russify everyone in the USSR(but they failed). But let's disregard that...I don't ever recall comparing Soviet people(let's says people living within the borders of the USSR) with animals, or nor did I call Red Army soldiers who took part in combat against the Nazis animals either, though I do recall comparing various national-liberation movements(in Algeria, Indochina, etc)to Soviet Partisans in Nazi-occupied areas(the point was that both were fighting for just causes). I guess that's another lie you just invented.

Regarding me being a nationalist and supporting anti-Bolshevik movements, well, that's a lie also. Am I a Chechen nationalist for supporting the Chechen insurrection of 1940-1944 that aimed to liberate the Caucasus from occupation and oppression by the Stalinist bureaucracy in Moscow? If I am, then surely, you're a Russian nationalist for supporting Russian Partisans and Red Army soldiers that fought to liberate Eastern Europe from Nazi occupiers. Does supporting the NLF in Vietnam make one a nationalist also? Perhaps only Algerian nationalists believe the cause of the LNF was just?

Either way, the majority of the Bolshevik leaders were murdered by the Stalinist regime in the 1930s. For example, of the 17 members of the Central Committee of the Bolshevik Party in 1917(that is to say, the CC that oversaw the October Revolution) that survived into the 1930s(the rest died of natural causes and during the Civil War), 13 were executed on Stalin's orders. So to accuse the 1940-1944 Chechen insurrection is ridiculous...the Bolsheviks were already defeated by the Stalinists and they had no longer anything to do with the USSR.

[El Oso Rojo]

Really? Marxist-Leninists hardly ever start threads just to boast about how great Stalin or the Soviet Union was, it's usually other people who start threads to rant about how bad it was. We merely join in the discussion. And quite frankly this seems to be just another one of these troll threads to rant about MLs and point fingers. No matter how much you may hate it, Stalin, Mao, Trotsky etc. are a significant part of the worker's movement who won't be forgotten any time soon and Revleft is probably the best place on the internet to discuss these things without trolls throwing out red herrings and straw-mans (although that does happen here but not as often as, say, reddit, which one Comrade has recently learnt).



I don't know about you but for most people Revleft is probably not a very big part of their real world life. It's not like Revleft is a bastion of the international worker's movement or the Comintern or anything. Just a place to discuss history, theory etc.

But it does not mean we have to condone everything single thing they do though.

[Omsk]

Am I a Chechen nationalist for supporting the Chechen insurrection of 1940-1944 that aimed to liberate the Caucasus from occupation and oppression by the Stalinist bureaucracy in Moscow?


No,you are a Chechen nationalist because you support Chechen nationalists.This is obvious and i won't waste my time on you any more.



you're a Russian nationalist for supporting Russian Partisans and Red Army soldiers that fought to liberate Eastern Europe from Nazi occupiers.


The Red Army was an instrument of the proletarian state,and as such,can't be nationalist,because the leaders,the ideology behind it,were not nationalist,while in the case of the Chechens,they were.

A yes or no answer would be all right - Were the Chechen insurrectionists Nationalists?

[Railyon]

No,you are a Chechen nationalist because you support Chechen nationalists.This is obvious and i won't waste my time on you any more.

Must I deduct from that that all who support National Liberation are therefore nationalists, because they support nationalists (which is pretty much unavoidable in the concept of NLS)?

[Omsk]

National-Liberation can be led by progressive leftists too.The problem with the Chechen 'national-liberationists' is that they were just backward nationalists and opportunists.

[W1N5T0N]

Well, seems I wasnt too wrong with my theories...
Again, historic squabbling, ML's, patronizing, etc :D

Seems my thread has been hijacked successfully. :thumbup1:

[Omsk]

Your thread was an ad-hominem attack on ML's here and as such had no value whatsoever.

We can get it on the 'right' track if you wish.


What are your suggestions regarding the "problems" you mentioned in your first post?

[W1N5T0N]

If my thread had no value whatsoever, then why do you even feel the need to comment on it and point out this blatantly obvious fact?

The fact that you ML's seem to rely on making rethorical statements (you, sir, are deranged!, ...no value whatsoever, etc) makes it look like you feel the need to defend yourself.


Ugh, i hate this silly flamebaiting...

[Omsk]

ML's seem to rely on making rethorical statements


Usually the ML's here have good arguments and long informative posts usually supported by book quotes and other supporting arguments. Unlike some people.

You just showed how silly you are by concentrating on this:


Your thread was an ad-hominem attack on ML's here and as such had no value whatsoever.


And not on this:
What are your suggestions regarding the "problems" you mentioned in your first post?



makes it look like you feel the need to defend yourself.
Actually we do,because the number of you anomalies is increasing every day,and most of you can't even construct basic criticism,but you want to criticize concepts set up by some of the greatest revolutionary minds of our era.



Ugh, i hate this silly flamebaiting...


What is your original post than flame-baiting.

[Os Cangaceiros]

And, in fact, this is the biggest problem: very few people actually read books. Sure, some read online books (not a big deal if it's something like the Communist Manifesto or whatever), but there's only so many things that are online. It's hard to have informed debates when the only knowledge one has about things comes from a Google search.

When you're discussing something online, it's good to have online sources to refer to. You can't do that with books, which kind of makes them not very useful in online discussions, unless you want to dredge up something and then say "go read this book if you want to know more". That's not that helpful. I will occassionally quote a paragraph or a few sentences from a book, but it's mostly just as a point of interest.

I actually remember in the "KKE thread" a while back, I got into an argument with someone over a certain aspect of the Spanish civil war, they made a claim, and then when I challenged them on that claim, they could not refer me to a single piece of online evidence, instead refering me to some obscure out of print book. Lame.

[Drosophila]

When you're discussing something online, it's good to have online sources to refer to. You can't do that with books, which kind of makes them not very useful in online discussions, unless you want to dredge up something and then say "go read this book if you want to know more". That's not that helpful. I will occassionally quote a paragraph or a few sentences from a book, but it's mostly just as a point of interest.

I actually remember in the "KKE thread" a while back, I got into an argument with someone over a certain aspect of the Spanish civil war, they made a claim, and then when I challenged them on that claim, they could not refer me to a single piece of online evidence, instead refering me to some obscure out of print book. Lame.

Why can't you cite books as sources? They are far more useful than most things on the Internet, even if they are outdated and/or out of print.

[W1N5T0N]

Comrade Omsk, I love constructive discussion.
However, I feel the strong need to disagree every.single.time you guys (accusing finger here) break out your "greatest revolutionary minds of our era" stuff.

and you say: "the number of you anomalies?" Am i an anomaly? or did you mean "your anomalies? An anomaly is usually an event which defies all known laws and logic. If my arguments are thus an "anomaly" to you, that means we are simply operating on different levels of logic. And yes, that was a hidden insult, and you may use the exact same one in your reply, adding a :rolleyes: if you wish. It will make me look like the ranting trot-traitor i am.

Im guessing by "long informative posts" you mean praising the soviet union and it's leaders - by using resources from the soviet union and its leaders?

Seems like a bit of a circular thing, imho.

My suggestions was just for people to actually ignore all the posts relating to these kind of things.

Which, sadly, I myself am failing at this moment considering I have a lengthy argument with somebody who would rather live in 1950's Russian Autocracy than a future of free association and an end to power-mongering....

[Os Cangaceiros]

Why can't you cite books as sources? They are far more useful than most things on the Internet, even if they are outdated and/or out of print.

Because when you do that you aren't providing readily verifiable information for the interested party or parties with whom you're having the discussion with.

[Drosophila]

Because when you do that you aren't providing readily verifiable information for the interested party or parties with whom you're having the discussion with.

The person citing the book should be careful to include details. Any good book should provide evidence for its contents.

[Hermes]

Because when you do that you aren't providing readily verifiable information for the interested party or parties with whom you're having the discussion with.

Just because you might have to expend some effort to obtain the source, it doesn't mean that the source isn't helpful. I can understand if you're unable to find or afford the book, but other than that, using books is superior in almost every way (especially for scholarly reasons, etc).

[Os Cangaceiros]

ugh, look, I have nothing against books. I read books myself. What I'm saying is that, in the context of an internet discussion forum, online sources are often better than books simply because they afford scrutiny on the part of whoever posted them. If I'm in a discussion with someone and they mention how the Spanish Republicans raped babies, as is discussed in some out-of-print book from a defunct university press, there is no possible way for me to respond to that allegation. You can suggest books as a way to further knowledge on a specific topic, or to augment online sources which also make your point, or use Google Books online and find the relevant pages, but I maintain that simply saying "go read this book" isn't helpful in the context of an internet discussion forum.

[Drosophila]

That is a good point, which is why I think people should be as detailed as possible when referencing books.

[the zizekian]

Good day.

Just wanted to say that I believe that this forum seems to be mainly there for having some petty party struggles, creating your own fantasy "groups" and "factions" and then arguing who was "scientifically" right in interpreting Marxism.

People argue about Stalin, Mao and Tito as if they had been there and under their rule in the time, while im pretty sure the people who do this on this forum consist mostly of westerners who have a revolutionary crush on these militaristic leaders. Why, i dont know. But none of these people take their literature with a pinch of salt - "Oh look, The CCP/Stalin/Lenin/Propaganda ministry" wrote this - It must be true!

They start a thread "what has comrade stalin done for us" or "The soviet union was a true workers state". Then they get all excited on how great soviet russia was etc, then the "anti-Stalinists" come (something people can actually agree on) and tell everybody "Wow stalin was such a bad guy, killed a lot of people etc" and then get rep points for standing against the bad stalinists.

How does this even matter in the real world? Arguing to and fro about the Soviet Union (which has crumbled) and Authoritarian leaders (who are dead) will not actually advance any leftist cause.

Lets face it - nobody likes all this retro-marxist crap, and instead of looking to 21st century problems of a highly advanced urbanised culture, many turn back and say: "Wow, great, lets embellish 20th century revolutionary ideals which were adapted to backward, semi-feudal culturally isolated countries!"

And when anybody comes along with anything vaguely new, they are labeled bourgeois reactionary class traitors etc (you know the deal).


Im asking myself: Why bother? What do these people contribute at all just by staying in their isolated little views? Arent you people just as "conservative" and intolerant as the people who you want to oust from power?

When i see what a lot of these sad "wannabe revolutionaries" post, i wanna tell them:
Take a good look at all the utter rubbish I see a lot of you churning out on a steady basis and actually THINK before you POST. The word "Stalin" and "Mao" will literally make people stop listening to you in any serious conversation about today's problems.


So I hope that all the people who keep going on the Stalinist/Soviet Union threads can realize that it is much more productive to just ignore these commie-conservatives and instead make new threads on the 21st century situation of workers and how to solve real problems. Posting again and again elaborate and factual replies on why Soviet Union failed - nobody cares, really. Been there, done that, and Stalinists refuse to acknowledge these "western conspiracy theories" - so why bother?!

To outsiders, im sure this faction squabbling and pseudo-scientific talking makes it look like the left is actually not a thread to anybody at the moment - they are too busy fighting amongst each other!

I disagree. To achieve something, this forum should have moderators like Stalin and Mao. They should try to close threads in a scientific manner until they notice they can only be totally arbitrary. Invoking of Stalin and Mao is essential to anyone serious about overthrowing capitalism. Capitalism wants new fads to prevent us to understand that Lenin scared everyone for bringing about a really new project.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Your thread was an ad-hominem attack on ML's here and as such had no value whatsoever.

We can get it on the 'right' track if you wish.


What are your suggestions regarding the "problems" you mentioned in your first post?

jesus christ comrade shut up and stop getting dragged into this bullshit

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

I disagree. To achieve something, this forum should have moderators like Stalin and Mao. They should try to close threads in a scientific manner until they notice they can only be totally arbitrary. Invoking of Stalin and Mao is essential to anyone serious about overthrowing capitalism. Capitalism wants new fads to prevent us to understand that Lenin scared everyone for bringing about a really new project.
:confused:

[the zizekian]

:confused:

Yes!

[Franz Fanonipants]

:confused:

confusion is terror

[the zizekian]

confusion is terror

Thinking is terror.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

:confused::confused::confused:

[Franz Fanonipants]

god i love the zizekian

[the zizekian]

god i love the zizekian

Zizek showed that Napoleon lived only to allow Hegel to think.

[Railyon]

What is this I don't even

[the zizekian]

A useful forum is one that doesn’t try to hide its arbitrariness.

[Os Cangaceiros]

More platitudes, zizekian! The people demand more!

[the zizekian]

More platitudes, zizekian! The people demand more!

Demand less.

[Prometeo liberado]

Roosterism, as based mainly on the teachings of Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels and Rooster, is the highest qualitative stage of Marxism so far and is the guiding ideology of revolutionaries the world over who carry forward the fight for a world free of all class distinctions, all exploitative production relations, all oppressive social relations, and all corresponding, reactionary ideas - the communist world of the future.

Seeing as I codified correctly labeled Roosterism in order to shed light on this insidious, derelict attempt to lead the working class from the living science and its proper interpretation, Marxism-Leninism, I feel a solemn duty to again point out the seeds of revisionism inherent in it. By its own admission it is only mainly based on Marx. Thus Rooster-thought attempts, by minority contribution at this point, to plant its heretical theoretical seed amongst the the great thinking body of Marx and Engels. Doing so in increments and without a further detailed program. Thus leaving the working class rudderless in a sea of theoretical haze.To be sure, with time Roosterism will mirror the degeneration of so many others that have come before. Like Percy Shelly's Masque of Anarchy, the truth is just beneath its surface.

[W1N5T0N]

jesus christ comrade shut up and stop getting dragged into this bullshit

my point exactly. :thumbup1:

[Railyon]

Seeing as I codified correctly labeled Roosterism in order to shed light on this insidious, derelict attempt to lead the working class from the living science and its proper interpretation, Marxism-Leninism, I feel a solemn duty to again point out the seeds of revisionism inherent in it. By its own admission it is only mainly based on Marx. Thus Rooster-thought attempts, by minority contribution at this point, to plant its heretical theoretical seed amongst the the great thinking body of Marx and Engels. Doing so in increments and without a further detailed program. Thus leaving the working class rudderless in a sea of theoretical haze.To be sure, with time Roosterism will mirror the degeneration of so many others that have come before. Like Percy Shelly's Masque of Anarchy, the truth is just beneath its surface.

Comrade, you don't grasp the dialectic! Can't you see the internal contradictions of it resolving itself in the glory of roosterist anti-anti-revisionism?!

[the zizekian]

Good day.

Just wanted to say that I believe that this forum seems to be mainly there for having some petty party struggles, creating your own fantasy "groups" and "factions" and then arguing who was "scientifically" right in interpreting Marxism.

That is still better than the other forums. Usually a forum, more than anything else, do accumulate endlessly sarcasms. Capitalism thrives in the meantime.

[Ismail]

ugh, look, I have nothing against books. I read books myself. What I'm saying is that, in the context of an internet discussion forum, online sources are often better than books simply because they afford scrutiny on the part of whoever posted them. If I'm in a discussion with someone and they mention how the Spanish Republicans raped babies, as is discussed in some out-of-print book from a defunct university press, there is no possible way for me to respond to that allegation. You can suggest books as a way to further knowledge on a specific topic, or to augment online sources which also make your point, or use Google Books online and find the relevant pages, but I maintain that simply saying "go read this book" isn't helpful in the context of an internet discussion forum.Well when I cite books I don't just go "NO YOU ARE WRONG SEE A. MANLYMANN (ED), PROSPECTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ANUS: SOUTH YEMEN IN PERSPECTIVE, third gold-plated edition. Hell, MI: Obscure Publishers. 1976. p. 788."

... I provide an actual quote from the book as I'm citing it. That should occur in any basic online debate to begin with (unless it's between experts who already are expected to be able to quickly read said reference from their own personal library or simple walk down some University halls to acquire it.)

[Omsk]

Comrade Omsk, I love constructive discussion.
However, I feel the strong need to disagree every.single.time you guys (accusing finger here) break out your "greatest revolutionary minds of our era" stuff.



How am i supposed to call Lenin or Stalin? Common individuals? I am sorry but they were not common,they were the minds and the classics of the era and the greatest thinkers representing my political ideology.


And yes, that was a hidden insult
I did not plan to 'hide' it.Some people here and theirr politics evade every normal border.



Im guessing by "long informative posts" you mean praising the soviet union and it's leaders - by using resources from the soviet union and its leaders?


Find me a post where i praised (Also note that defending the USSR from various lies and slander is not 'praising' it.) the USSR using book quotes from books published in the USSR,as for an example,party material.

You will find no such posts.


My suggestions was just for people to actually ignore all the posts relating to these kind of things.


Why don't you say it,come on - say it. "Ignore Marxist-Leninists."


Which, sadly, I myself am failing at this moment considering I have a lengthy argument with somebody who would rather live in 1950's Russian Autocracy than a future of free association and an end to power-mongering....


Neither are you having a 'lengthy' argument,nor do you have a strong understanding of our politics or some other ideological principles.

[the zizekian]

Good day.

Just wanted to say that I believe that this forum seems to be mainly there for having some petty party struggles, creating your own fantasy "groups" and "factions" and then arguing who was "scientifically" right in interpreting Marxism.


With a pretention of following the scientific method, nothing can be “petty” and “fantasist”.

[W1N5T0N]

How am i supposed to call Lenin or Stalin? Common individuals? I am sorry but they were not common,they were the minds and the classics of the era and the greatest thinkers representing my political ideology.


I did not plan to 'hide' it.Some people here and theirr politics evade every normal border.




Find me a post where i praised (Also note that defending the USSR from various lies and slander is not 'praising' it.) the USSR using book quotes from books published in the USSR,as for an example,party material.

You will find no such posts.



Why don't you say it,come on - say it. "Ignore Marxist-Leninists."



Neither are you having a 'lengthy' argument,nor do you have a strong understanding of our politics or some other ideological principles.


méh.

[the zizekian]

People argue about Stalin, Mao and Tito as if they had been there and under their rule in the time, while im pretty sure the people who do this on this forum consist mostly of westerners who have a revolutionary crush on these militaristic leaders. Why, i dont know. But none of these people take their literature with a pinch of salt - "Oh look, The CCP/Stalin/Lenin/Propaganda ministry" wrote this - It must be true!


What is not propaganda anyway!?

[shankane]

Re this discussion....

Don't get me wrong, I dislike Stalinism as much as the next normal person, but from lurking revleft for awhile, I think it needs to be said that most revleft Stalinists are not actually Stalinists in the sense of being politically organized members of Stalinist organizations. Rather, they seem to be mostly bored teenagers who played a lot of Red Alert or whatever and decided to be edgy by declaring themselves Stalinists on the internet. As antiworking class as real Stalinists are, in my experience, they don't actually behave anything like the teenage internet ones.

[Drosophila]

Re this discussion....

Don't get me wrong, I dislike Stalinism as much as the next normal person, but from lurking revleft for awhile, I think it needs to be said that most revleft Stalinists are not actually Stalinists in the sense of being politically organized members of Stalinist organizations. Rather, they seem to be mostly bored teenagers who played a lot of Red Alert or whatever and decided to be edgy by declaring themselves Stalinists on the internet. As antiworking class as real Stalinists are, in my experience, they don't actually behave anything like the teenage internet ones.


I had never even heard of 'Red Alert' until people here started bringing it up as an insult.

As for your analysis, there are no "Stalinist" parties, as Stalin is long dead and the USSR no longer exists.

[the zizekian]

As for your analysis, there are no "Stalinist" parties, as Stalin is long dead and the USSR no longer exists.

There is still at least a Stalinist party in India. The World Socialist Web Site gives us the latest news from it :

India: Stalinist CPM promotes alliance with regional bourgeois parties
By Deepal Jayasekera in Kozhikode
7 April 2012

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2012/apr2012/cpmi-a07.shtml (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2012/apr2012/cpmi-a07.shtml)

[Omsk]

For the last time,"Stalinism" does not exist,it's just an empty phrase,first used by the Soviet statesman,Lazar Kaganovich,and than by everyone who knows absolutely nothing about the Soviet Union,Marxism-Leninism or the man himself.

There are a lot of Marxist-Leninist parties in the world.

[the zizekian]

For the last time,"Stalinism" does not exist,it's just an empty phrase,first used by the Soviet statesman,Lazar Kaganovich,and than by everyone who knows absolutely nothing about the Soviet Union,Marxism-Leninism or the man himself.

There are a lot of Marxist-Leninist parties in the world.

We should not bury our heads in the sand.

[NGNM85]

If nothing else; this forum serves as exhaustive documentation of the myriad pathologies afflicting the Radical left.

[Rafiq]

If nothing else; this forum serves as exhaustive documentation of the myriad pathologies afflicting the Radical left.

You're just pissy because You're restricted...

Because you're a Liberal scumbag.

No, Revleft isn't a revolutionary gathering of the radical left, but a lot of interesting discussion can take place... That of which you never have been able to conjure.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[milkmiku]

If nothing else; this forum serves as exhaustive documentation of the myriad pathologies afflicting the Radical left.


I call it the opposite, it is more like the lefts inability to cope with opposing ideas in a a sound manner.

True opposing ideology followers are executed(banned) and people who do not join popular consensus or fail some invisible stat check are sent to camps for reeducated(restricted).

I suppose that inability could be one of the things you speak of.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

you're just pissy because you're restricted...

Because you're a liberal scumbag.

lol

[NGNM85]

You're just pissy because You're restricted...

Because you're a Liberal scumbag.

How long did it take you to come up with that one?

You've never offered any evidence of ideological inconsistency on my part. (To be honest; I don't think you care.)You're just slinging shit because you can. this is the RevLeft equivalent of; 'buttface', and displays about as much intelligence.

Finally; the statements for which I was Restricted were totally compatible with Anarchism. (In fact, as the only logical conclusion I would argue it is the only position consistent with Anarchism.) Rather; it resulted from a disagreement with the official platform of the forum, or, more specifically, one of the tenets of the official platform, (Which is in no way fundamental to Anarchism, or any school of Marxism, that I am aware of.) because it's wrong.

[Klaatu]

I think free speech and debate are the best things we have going. This way, good ideas can be useful (for the future of Socialism) while bad ideas can be discarded.

[NGNM85]

I think free speech and debate are the best things we have going. This way, good ideas can be useful (for the future of Socialism) while bad ideas can be discarded.

I happen to agree. Unfortunately, many around these parts take a different view.

[l'Enfermé]

You're just pissy because You're restricted...

Because you're a Liberal scumbag.

No, Revleft isn't a revolutionary gathering of the radical left, but a lot of interesting discussion can take place... That of which you never have been able to conjure.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2
It's quite interesting that you have the balls to call a consistent Anarchist who was restricted for something that has nothing to do with Anarchism(I believe he was restricted for opposing late-term abortion, because he believes that the fetus, at this point, is developed enough to be affored rights that other humans have, or something like that, I've discussed this with him previously but I'm not sure I'm phrasing it as well as he did, either way, this is a scientific and ethical question, not a political one, and has nothing to do with "revleftism"(lol)) a "liberal scumbag", yet you don't call other Anarchists, say, cmoney or psycho, "liberal scumbags"...

Sure, it's true that anarchism springs from petty-bourg. mentality, but that doesn't make anarchists "liberal scumbags", though many Anarchists, especially around here, do adopt some liberal positions, especially it comes to issues like bourg. feminism(as opposed to Proletarian feminism).

[the zizekian]

They start a thread "what has comrade stalin done for us" or "The soviet union was a true workers state". Then they get all excited on how great soviet russia was etc, then the "anti-Stalinists" come (something people can actually agree on) and tell everybody "Wow stalin was such a bad guy, killed a lot of people etc" and then get rep points for standing against the bad stalinists.


Just in terms of number of deads, Stalin’s communism was an angel compared to Christianity and capitalism.

[NGNM85]

I call it the opposite, it is more like the lefts inability to cope with opposing ideas in a a sound manner.

True opposing ideology followers are executed(banned) and people who do not join popular consensus or fail some invisible stat check are sent to camps for reeducated(restricted).

I suppose that inability could be one of the things you speak of.

I was speaking of the whole forum, not just OI. I was thinking more of the rampant irrationality, the quasi-religious dogmatism, etc., etc.

However; I certainly agree that the policies regarding what can, and cannot be said, erspecially, are long overdue for an update. I've made a number of suggestions, in the past. Personally; I think we should jettison this bogus ideological purity test (Not in the least because, as previously noted, some of the tenets have nothing to do with Anarchism, or Marxism.) and that infractions should be based solely on conduct.

[Drosophila]

Always bet on the Rafiq.

[W1N5T0N]

Just in terms of number of deads, Stalin’s communism was an angel compared to Christianity and capitalism.

Of course, all written in the black book of christianity and capitalism...

Look, we all know that C&C as well as Stalin killed very, very many people in their cause.
However, Christianity had about 2000 years more time, and Capitalism about 200...

[hatzel]

other Anarchists, say, cmoney or psycho

cmoney makes a point of not calling himself an anarchist, just 'anarchist- and communist-influenced' or something like that ('Marxist amongst anarchists, anarchist amongst Marxists'), and psycho - I believe - sees himself as an autonomist with anarchist sympathies. I might be wrong with that second one, but the first I'm certain about...

But it doesn't actually matter, I just thought I'd point it out...

Also stop hating on feminism in unrelated threads. Seriously it just makes it seem like you've got some kind of problem with the idea of women's liberation.

[NGNM85]

cmoney makes a point of not calling himself an anarchist, just 'anarchist- and communist-influenced' or something like that ('Marxist amongst anarchists, anarchist amongst Marxists'), and psycho - I believe - sees himself as an autonomist with anarchist sympathies. I might be wrong with that second one, but the first I'm certain about...

But it doesn't actually matter, I just thought I'd point it out...

It's completely irrelevent because, as I said earlier, Rafiq is not honestly criticizing any ideological inconsistency on my part, (Not in the least because no such inconsistency exists.) he's just making cheap shots, as per usual. Admittedly; it's a lot easier than thinking.

[the zizekian]

Of course, all written in the black book of christianity and capitalism...

Look, we all know that C&C as well as Stalin killed very, very many people in their cause.
However, Christianity had about 2000 years more time, and Capitalism about 200...

Like you, Christians and capitalists don’t like to talk about “retro-Marxist crap” to buy more time for killing.

[Rafiq]

How long did it take you to come up with that one?

As long as it takes to take one look at your posts.


You've never offered any evidence of ideological inconsistency on my part.

I never said you were inconsistent. You're an ideological consistent liberalist. There is no arguing otherwise.


(To be honest; I don't think you care.)

What the hell does consistency have to do with this, you fuck?


You're just slinging shit because you can. this is the RevLeft equivalent of; 'buttface', and displays about as much intelligence.


NGNM, you've always been a snotty bastard. The mark of a Liberal.


Finally; the statements for which I was Restricted were totally compatible with Anarchism.

Not necessarily the revolutionary, proletarian Anarchism that we can deem worthy as representing the proletariat. No, you're one of those Liberalist-Anarchists, or to put it more accurately, you're just a Libertarian. Hell, a lot of Socialists are reactionary, Utopian scum bags and they can all go fuck themselves. Anarchists are no exception.


(In fact, as the only logical conclusion I would argue it is the only position consistent with Anarchism.)

That's quite an assertion. Of course, you're "Logical conclusion" would be completely moralist, i.e. ("Things should be X way, we should live X way, because hierarchy is bad mkay, so is authoritah and infringments on our NATRAL RIGHTZ!").


Rather; it resulted from a disagreement with the official platform of the forum, or, more specifically, one of the tenets of the official platform, (Which is in no way fundamental to Anarchism, or any school of Marxism,

They are. To all forms of real revolutionary socialism in the 21st century.

Go fuck yourself, Liberal shit bag. Please, just stop posting.

[Rafiq]

It's quite interesting that you have the balls to call a consistent Anarchist who was restricted for something that has nothing to do with Anarchism(I believe he was restricted for opposing late-term abortion, because he believes that the fetus, at this point, is developed enough to be affored rights that other humans have, or something like that, I've discussed this with him previously but I'm not sure I'm phrasing it as well as he did, either way, this is a scientific and ethical question, not a political one, and has nothing to do with "revleftism"(lol)) a "liberal scumbag", yet you don't call other Anarchists, say, cmoney or psycho, "liberal scumbags"...

Sure, it's true that anarchism springs from petty-bourg. mentality, but that doesn't make anarchists "liberal scumbags", though many Anarchists, especially around here, do adopt some liberal positions, especially it comes to issues like bourg. feminism(as opposed to Proletarian feminism).

Hell, are you delusional or something? Of course not all Anarchists are Liberals. But none the less they do exist (NGNM).

[Robespierres Neck]

Roosterism, as based mainly on the teachings of Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels and Rooster, is the highest qualitative stage of Marxism so far and is the guiding ideology of revolutionaries the world over who carry forward the fight for a world free of all class distinctions, all exploitative production relations, all oppressive social relations, and all corresponding, reactionary ideas - the communist world of the future.

Who is 'Rooster'? Is this a joke or troll that I'm not getting?

[Rafiq]

It's completely irrelevent because, as I said earlier, Rafiq is not honestly criticizing any ideological inconsistency on my part, (Not in the least because no such inconsistency exists.) he's just making cheap shots, as per usual. Admittedly; it's a lot easier than thinking.

Please point out where I asserted you're ideologically inconsistent, you're not. It's just that Anarchism in itself can mean a wide range of ideological tendencies.

There exists Bourgeois socialism, and as Anarchism, a current of Socialism in itself, is no exception to this: There does also exist Bourgeois Anarchism.

[the zizekian]

Good day.

Just wanted to say that I believe that this forum seems to be mainly there for having some petty party struggles, creating your own fantasy "groups" and "factions" and then arguing who was "scientifically" right in interpreting Marxism.

People argue about Stalin, Mao and Tito as if they had been there and under their rule in the time, while im pretty sure the people who do this on this forum consist mostly of westerners who have a revolutionary crush on these militaristic leaders. Why, i dont know. But none of these people take their literature with a pinch of salt - "Oh look, The CCP/Stalin/Lenin/Propaganda ministry" wrote this - It must be true!

They start a thread "what has comrade stalin done for us" or "The soviet union was a true workers state". Then they get all excited on how great soviet russia was etc, then the "anti-Stalinists" come (something people can actually agree on) and tell everybody "Wow stalin was such a bad guy, killed a lot of people etc" and then get rep points for standing against the bad stalinists.

How does this even matter in the real world? Arguing to and fro about the Soviet Union (which has crumbled) and Authoritarian leaders (who are dead) will not actually advance any leftist cause.

Lets face it - nobody likes all this retro-marxist crap, and instead of looking to 21st century problems of a highly advanced urbanised culture, many turn back and say: "Wow, great, lets embellish 20th century revolutionary ideals which were adapted to backward, semi-feudal culturally isolated countries!"

And when anybody comes along with anything vaguely new, they are labeled bourgeois reactionary class traitors etc (you know the deal).


Im asking myself: Why bother? What do these people contribute at all just by staying in their isolated little views? Arent you people just as "conservative" and intolerant as the people who you want to oust from power?

When i see what a lot of these sad "wannabe revolutionaries" post, i wanna tell them:
Take a good look at all the utter rubbish I see a lot of you churning out on a steady basis and actually THINK before you POST. The word "Stalin" and "Mao" will literally make people stop listening to you in any serious conversation about today's problems.


So I hope that all the people who keep going on the Stalinist/Soviet Union threads can realize that it is much more productive to just ignore these commie-conservatives and instead make new threads on the 21st century situation of workers and how to solve real problems. Posting again and again elaborate and factual replies on why Soviet Union failed - nobody cares, really. Been there, done that, and Stalinists refuse to acknowledge these "western conspiracy theories" - so why bother?!

To outsiders, im sure this faction squabbling and pseudo-scientific talking makes it look like the left is actually not a thread to anybody at the moment - they are too busy fighting amongst each other!

Those brainwashed by capitalist marketing always want something new.

[Klaatu]

I happen to agree. Unfortunately, many around these parts take a different view.

The fact that the Socialists and Communists even have such a forum as this one, proves to me that these people are all about freedom and democracy. When anyone tries to squelch freedom and democracy, beware. They are not true Socialists and Communists. That's because Socialism and Communism are all about 'the people' and our rights...not some monarch, some dictator, or some capitalistic Plutocrat's 'rights'

[the zizekian]

Lets face it - nobody likes all this retro-marxist crap, and instead of looking to 21st century problems of a highly advanced urbanised culture, many turn back and say: "Wow, great, lets embellish 20th century revolutionary ideals which were adapted to backward, semi-feudal culturally isolated countries!"


A revolution doesn’t care about adaptation.

[NGNM85]

As long as it takes to take one look at your posts.

I never said you were inconsistent. You're an ideological consistent liberalist. There is no arguing otherwise.
What the hell does consistency have to do with this, you fuck?

There’s no such thing as a ‘Liberalist.’ There are only ‘Liberals.’

I’m giving you the (undeserved) credit of entertaining the possibility that you are actually making an honest criticism, half-assed as it may be, as opposed to simply trying to irritate me. While Anarchism grew out of Classical Liberalism, one cannot simultaneously be an Anarchist, and a Liberal, in the modern context. The two are mutually exclusive. Ergo; since you charge that I am a Liberal, then, for that to be true, I could not be an Anarchist. To not be an Anarchist is to not satisfy the sufficient conditions of Anarchism. Therefore; my Anarchism, or, ‘Anarchism’, must be incomplete. That’s the only way it makes sense. Otherwise; you’re just talking out of your ass. As you’ve never seriously attempted to demonstrate ideological inconsistency on my part, (Not in the least because such inconsistency exists.) and for several other reasons, I’m inclined to believe the latter. It's obvious, really.


NGNM, you've always been a snotty bastard. The mark of a Liberal.

I have been exceptionally patient, and generous. You have been (and continue to be) hostile, and rude.

‘Snottiness’ is not a sufficient condition of being a Liberal.


Not necessarily the revolutionary, proletarian Anarchism that we can deem worthy as representing the proletariat. No, you're one of those Liberalist-Anarchists, or to put it more accurately, you're just a Libertarian. Hell, a lot of Socialists are reactionary, Utopian scum bags and they can all go fuck themselves. Anarchists are no exception.

Putting the rhetoric aside; you only prove Borz’s accusation regarding your true feelings about Anarchism. Anarchism is, by definition, Libertarian. (So are a number of Marxists.) Therefore; if you’re opposed to Libertarianism, you must be opposed to Anarchism. You don’t have to be an Anarchist to be a Libertarian, but you absolutely do have to be a Libertarian to be an Anarchist. You might as well be honest about it; you hate Anarchism. That’s fine. I won't be joining your fan club anytime soon.


That's quite an assertion. Of course, you're "Logical conclusion" would be completely moralist, i.e. ("Things should be X way, we should live X way, because hierarchy is bad mkay, so is authoritah and infringments on our NATRAL RIGHTZ!").
They are. To all forms of real revolutionary socialism in the 21st century.

For whatever reason, you seem to have divided this paragraph into random sections, and, therefore, completely lost the meaning of what was being said. I don’t want to waste a whole lot of time with this as it was a small point, and, really, irrelevant to the matter at hand.

My logical conclusion, for which I was Restricted, was that, by the 6th, or 7th month there is no sufficient condition of a human being that a fetus lacks. We can say this because human beings are biological organisms, therefore; who is, or is not a human being is an empirical, biological fact, which we can verify. Furthermore; by such time said fetus already possesses all of the biological prerequisites, namely; the neural architecture necessary to begin manifesting consciousness, or ‘proto-consciousness’, if you like. I think you’d agree with the latter, at the very least, I know you agree with the former. Regardless; there’s simply no other way to see it. That’s why I was Restricted. That’s the only reason I was Restricted. For having the temerity to speak the truth. Also; as I said, none of this is, in any way, inconsistent with Anarchism, or Marxism. My crime was to contradict the official platform of this forum; 'RevLeftism', if you like.

You are right, however, that my statement was completely, as you say; ‘moralist.’ I dare say that I happen to be of the radical opinion that arbitrarily taking human life, or, in a word; murder, is wrong. That’s just going to be an impasse.

Incidentally; I don’t categorically oppose hierarchy, or authority, only authoritarianism.


Go fuck yourself, Liberal shit bag.

Eloquent in it’s brevity. You must have stayed up all night to compose this masterpiece.


Please, just stop posting.

One wonders why you would even bother making such a statement. Do you honestly believe that I would grant your request? What, because you’ve been so fucking delightful? If anything; you’ve just strengthened my resolve.

Have a nice day.

[NGNM85]

The fact that the Socialists and Communists even have such a forum as this one, proves to me that these people are all about freedom and democracy.

You're overlooking the fact that this is one of the most restrictive, and doctrinaire forums on the internet. The slightest deviation from the authorized opinions is immediately punished be Restriction, or a Ban. Clearly; a significant number of individuals here are ambivalent, if not outright contemptuous of freedom, particularly the feeedom to express ones' ideas, and democracy, and will gladly tell you so.


When anyone tries to squelch freedom and democracy, beware. They are not true Socialists and Communists. That's because Socialism and Communism are all about 'the people' and our rights...not some monarch, some dictator, or some capitalistic Plutocrat's 'rights'


You're preaching to the choir, mac.

[the zizekian]

Good day.

Just wanted to say that I believe that this forum seems to be mainly there for having some petty party struggles, creating your own fantasy "groups" and "factions" and then arguing who was "scientifically" right in interpreting Marxism.

People argue about Stalin, Mao and Tito as if they had been there and under their rule in the time, while im pretty sure the people who do this on this forum consist mostly of westerners who have a revolutionary crush on these militaristic leaders. Why, i dont know. But none of these people take their literature with a pinch of salt - "Oh look, The CCP/Stalin/Lenin/Propaganda ministry" wrote this - It must be true!

They start a thread "what has comrade stalin done for us" or "The soviet union was a true workers state". Then they get all excited on how great soviet russia was etc, then the "anti-Stalinists" come (something people can actually agree on) and tell everybody "Wow stalin was such a bad guy, killed a lot of people etc" and then get rep points for standing against the bad stalinists.

How does this even matter in the real world? Arguing to and fro about the Soviet Union (which has crumbled) and Authoritarian leaders (who are dead) will not actually advance any leftist cause.

Lets face it - nobody likes all this retro-marxist crap, and instead of looking to 21st century problems of a highly advanced urbanised culture, many turn back and say: "Wow, great, lets embellish 20th century revolutionary ideals which were adapted to backward, semi-feudal culturally isolated countries!"

And when anybody comes along with anything vaguely new, they are labeled bourgeois reactionary class traitors etc (you know the deal).


Im asking myself: Why bother? What do these people contribute at all just by staying in their isolated little views? Arent you people just as "conservative" and intolerant as the people who you want to oust from power?

When i see what a lot of these sad "wannabe revolutionaries" post, i wanna tell them:
Take a good look at all the utter rubbish I see a lot of you churning out on a steady basis and actually THINK before you POST. The word "Stalin" and "Mao" will literally make people stop listening to you in any serious conversation about today's problems.


So I hope that all the people who keep going on the Stalinist/Soviet Union threads can realize that it is much more productive to just ignore these commie-conservatives and instead make new threads on the 21st century situation of workers and how to solve real problems. Posting again and again elaborate and factual replies on why Soviet Union failed - nobody cares, really. Been there, done that, and Stalinists refuse to acknowledge these "western conspiracy theories" - so why bother?!

To outsiders, im sure this faction squabbling and pseudo-scientific talking makes it look like the left is actually not a thread to anybody at the moment - they are too busy fighting amongst each other!

A forum that is going nowhere calls for another Stalin to impose a direction to it.

[Rafiq]

NGNM why did you make your post a big fuck pit? I can't even quote it because there's all sorts of Fonts and shit you put. You only need ONE fucking font. Everyone, try responding to that assholes post. It's virtually impossible, he did it on purpose to be a difficult piece of shit. If you want to argue, then edit your post, remove all your fonts and clusterfuck of specified options and then we can talk, for the last time. You didn't seem to do the same thing on your other posts, It makes me wonder why you'd do it on this one... Coward.

[the zizekian]

To outsiders, im sure this faction squabbling and pseudo-scientific talking makes it look like the left is actually not a thread to anybody at the moment - they are too busy fighting amongst each other!

Threat comes by learning to fight with partners.

[Revolution starts with U]

TZ, you're my favorite poster :lol:

[NGNM85]

There’s no such thing as a ‘Liberalist.’ There are only ‘Liberals.’

I’m giving you the (undeserved) credit of entertaining the possibility that you are actually making an honest criticism, half-assed as it may be, as opposed to simply trying to irritate me. While Anarchism grew out of Classical Liberalism, one cannot simultaneously be an Anarchist, and a Liberal, in the modern context. The two are mutually exclusive. Ergo; since you charge that I am a Liberal, then, for that to be true, I could not be an Anarchist. To not be an Anarchist is to not satisfy the sufficient conditions of Anarchism. Therefore; my Anarchism, or, ‘Anarchism’, must be incomplete. That’s the only way it makes sense. Otherwise; you’re just talking out of your ass. As you’ve never seriously attempted to demonstrate ideological inconsistency on my part, (Not in the least because such inconsistency exists.) and for several other reasons, I’m inclined to believe the latter. It's obvious, really.



I have been exceptionally patient, and generous. You have been (and continue to be) hostile, and rude.

‘Snottiness’ is not a sufficient condition of being a Liberal.



Putting the rhetoric aside; you only prove Borz’s accusation regarding your true feelings about Anarchism. Anarchism is, by definition, Libertarian. (So are a number of Marxists.) Therefore; if you’re opposed to Libertarianism, you must be opposed to Anarchism. You don’t have to be an Anarchist to be a Libertarian, but you absolutely do have to be a Libertarian to be an Anarchist. You might as well be honest about it; you hate Anarchism. That’s fine. I won't be joining your fan club anytime soon.



For whatever reason, you seem to have divided this paragraph into random sections, and, therefore, completely lost the meaning of what was being said. I don’t want to waste a whole lot of time with this as it was a small point, and, really, irrelevant to the matter at hand.

My logical conclusion, for which I was Restricted, was that, by the 6th, or 7th month there is no sufficient condition of a human being that a fetus lacks. We can say this because human beings are biological organisms, therefore; who is, or is not a human being is an empirical, biological fact, which we can verify. Furthermore; by such time said fetus already possesses all of the biological prerequisites, namely; the neural architecture necessary to begin manifesting consciousness, or ‘proto-consciousness’, if you like. I think you’d agree with the latter, at the very least, I know you agree with the former. Regardless; there’s simply no other way to see it. That’s why I was Restricted. That’s the only reason I was Restricted. For having the temerity to speak the truth. Also; as I said, none of this is, in any way, inconsistent with Anarchism, or Marxism. My crime was to contradict the official platform of this forum; 'RevLeftism', if you like.

You are right, however, that my statement was completely, as you say; ‘moralist.’ I dare say that I happen to be of the radical opinion that arbitrarily taking human life, or, in a word; murder, is wrong. That’s just going to be an impasse.

Incidentally; I don’t categorically oppose hierarchy, or authority, only authoritarianism.



Eloquent in it’s brevity. You must have stayed up all night to compose this masterpiece.



One wonders why you would even bother making such a statement. Do you honestly believe that I would grant your request? What, because you’ve been so fucking delightful? If anything; you’ve just strengthened my resolve.

Have a nice day.


Test.

[the zizekian]

TZ, you're my favorite poster :lol:

Those who like my posts will also like my Facebook group:

http://www.facebook.com/groups/275176609210075/351068278287574/#!/groups/275176609210075/ (http://www.facebook.com/groups/275176609210075/351068278287574/#!/groups/275176609210075/)

[NGNM85]

NGNM why did you make your post a big fuck pit? I can't even quote it because there's all sorts of Fonts and shit you put. You only need ONE fucking font. Everyone, try responding to that assholes post. It's virtually impossible, he did it on purpose to be a difficult piece of shit. If you want to argue, then edit your post, remove all your fonts and clusterfuck of specified options and then we can talk, for the last time. You didn't seem to do the same thing on your other posts, It makes me wonder why you'd do it on this one... Coward.

I didn't purposefully do anything. After a couple unpleasant experiences, I typically cut and paste long, involved posts into a word processor so that I don't lose a whole page of text if the page reloads, or whatever. Sometimes this changes the fonts, but I'm usually pretty careful to change it back when I'm done.

I was just able to quote the whole thing without changing anything. (See above.) Even if what you say is true, it's an easy fix. If it matters that much to you, you don't even have to use the quote feature. I've done nothing to intentionally hinder you from responding to my post. You are free to do so.

This is what I was talking about. For all my perceived faults, I generally don't resort to cursing at people, or calling them names. Once again; I will demurre, and once again; I have been about as patient as I can be, and you have been as rude as you could be.

Have a nice day.

[the zizekian]

Good day.

Just wanted to say that I believe that this forum seems to be mainly there for having some petty party struggles, creating your own fantasy "groups" and "factions" and then arguing who was "scientifically" right in interpreting Marxism.

People argue about Stalin, Mao and Tito as if they had been there and under their rule in the time, while im pretty sure the people who do this on this forum consist mostly of westerners who have a revolutionary crush on these militaristic leaders. Why, i dont know. But none of these people take their literature with a pinch of salt - "Oh look, The CCP/Stalin/Lenin/Propaganda ministry" wrote this - It must be true!

They start a thread "what has comrade stalin done for us" or "The soviet union was a true workers state". Then they get all excited on how great soviet russia was etc, then the "anti-Stalinists" come (something people can actually agree on) and tell everybody "Wow stalin was such a bad guy, killed a lot of people etc" and then get rep points for standing against the bad stalinists.

How does this even matter in the real world? Arguing to and fro about the Soviet Union (which has crumbled) and Authoritarian leaders (who are dead) will not actually advance any leftist cause.

Lets face it - nobody likes all this retro-marxist crap, and instead of looking to 21st century problems of a highly advanced urbanised culture, many turn back and say: "Wow, great, lets embellish 20th century revolutionary ideals which were adapted to backward, semi-feudal culturally isolated countries!"

And when anybody comes along with anything vaguely new, they are labeled bourgeois reactionary class traitors etc (you know the deal).


Im asking myself: Why bother? What do these people contribute at all just by staying in their isolated little views? Arent you people just as "conservative" and intolerant as the people who you want to oust from power?

When i see what a lot of these sad "wannabe revolutionaries" post, i wanna tell them:
Take a good look at all the utter rubbish I see a lot of you churning out on a steady basis and actually THINK before you POST. The word "Stalin" and "Mao" will literally make people stop listening to you in any serious conversation about today's problems.


So I hope that all the people who keep going on the Stalinist/Soviet Union threads can realize that it is much more productive to just ignore these commie-conservatives and instead make new threads on the 21st century situation of workers and how to solve real problems. Posting again and again elaborate and factual replies on why Soviet Union failed - nobody cares, really. Been there, done that, and Stalinists refuse to acknowledge these "western conspiracy theories" - so why bother?!

To outsiders, im sure this faction squabbling and pseudo-scientific talking makes it look like the left is actually not a thread to anybody at the moment - they are too busy fighting amongst each other!

We need a new orthodoxy not a new fad.

[Klaatu]

You're overlooking the fact that this is one of the most restrictive, and doctrinaire forums on the internet. The slightest deviation from the authorized opinions is immediately punished be Restriction, or a Ban. Clearly; a significant number of individuals here are ambivalent, if not outright contemptuous of freedom, particularly the feeedom to express ones' ideas, and democracy, and will gladly tell you so.


I guess that kind of means what one says. For example, if someone posts something that is racist, misogynistic, homosexual-bashing speech, or speech that is hateful, threatening, fascist, anti-communist, anti-socialist (in the sense of being snooty and condescending, etc) these posters get restricted or banned.

This would go for any public message board. For example, suppose you ran a forum for the protection of sexually abused children, and some guy from NAMBLA (National Advocacy of Man-Boy Love Association) came on and starts lambasting child porn laws...would you not kick this guy out?

[the zizekian]

Good day.

Just wanted to say that I believe that this forum seems to be mainly there for having some petty party struggles, creating your own fantasy "groups" and "factions" and then arguing who was "scientifically" right in interpreting Marxism.

People argue about Stalin, Mao and Tito as if they had been there and under their rule in the time, while im pretty sure the people who do this on this forum consist mostly of westerners who have a revolutionary crush on these militaristic leaders. Why, i dont know. But none of these people take their literature with a pinch of salt - "Oh look, The CCP/Stalin/Lenin/Propaganda ministry" wrote this - It must be true!

They start a thread "what has comrade stalin done for us" or "The soviet union was a true workers state". Then they get all excited on how great soviet russia was etc, then the "anti-Stalinists" come (something people can actually agree on) and tell everybody "Wow stalin was such a bad guy, killed a lot of people etc" and then get rep points for standing against the bad stalinists.

How does this even matter in the real world? Arguing to and fro about the Soviet Union (which has crumbled) and Authoritarian leaders (who are dead) will not actually advance any leftist cause.

Lets face it - nobody likes all this retro-marxist crap, and instead of looking to 21st century problems of a highly advanced urbanised culture, many turn back and say: "Wow, great, lets embellish 20th century revolutionary ideals which were adapted to backward, semi-feudal culturally isolated countries!"

And when anybody comes along with anything vaguely new, they are labeled bourgeois reactionary class traitors etc (you know the deal).


Im asking myself: Why bother? What do these people contribute at all just by staying in their isolated little views? Arent you people just as "conservative" and intolerant as the people who you want to oust from power?

When i see what a lot of these sad "wannabe revolutionaries" post, i wanna tell them:
Take a good look at all the utter rubbish I see a lot of you churning out on a steady basis and actually THINK before you POST. The word "Stalin" and "Mao" will literally make people stop listening to you in any serious conversation about today's problems.


So I hope that all the people who keep going on the Stalinist/Soviet Union threads can realize that it is much more productive to just ignore these commie-conservatives and instead make new threads on the 21st century situation of workers and how to solve real problems. Posting again and again elaborate and factual replies on why Soviet Union failed - nobody cares, really. Been there, done that, and Stalinists refuse to acknowledge these "western conspiracy theories" - so why bother?!

To outsiders, im sure this faction squabbling and pseudo-scientific talking makes it look like the left is actually not a thread to anybody at the moment - they are too busy fighting amongst each other!

To find what is really new in the new, you need to stick to something old.

[Rafiq]

Ok ill be responding tommaroe

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[the zizekian]

To find what is really new in the new, you need to stick to something old.

A good example is Charlie Chaplin: it is only because he resisted to adding voice to images that he was able to really understand what voice can bring to cinema.

[Hiero]

Ironically I've very rarely seen "Stalinists" on RevLeft actually use Soviet sources. I have tons of books from the 8 Nëntori Publishing House (which was the Albanian equivalent of the Soviet Union's Progress Publishers) though, alongside various bourgeois academic works.

And, in fact, this is the biggest problem: very few people actually read books. Sure, some read online books (not a big deal if it's something like the Communist Manifesto or whatever), but there's only so many things that are online. It's hard to have informed debates when the only knowledge one has about things comes from a Google search.

I think this also contributes to the strong ideological eclecticism which is prevalent on RevLeft. As Prairie Fire once said, "Every commie noob thinks that they're the new Lenin. Every red, who's been red for a year or so, thinks that they are the true disciple of Marx, and that they have the ideological 'Holy Grail' of insight that all of the other communists in the movement, who have been red for decades, are missing. It seems to me that very few people come to communism to embrace it; they come to communism hoping to change it. I should know because sadly, I was once among their ranks.... In hindsight, my communist development could have been so much more painless if I had taken into account the four decades of socialist experience that my comrades offered to me. I guess that to truly embrace the theory laid down by Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, etc, you have to actually experience the communist movement. To truly understand the wisdom of the classics, rather than suggesting radical and impractical revisions to them, you need to learn for yourself why your own notions are incorrect, through practical experience and study. To sum up, basically I used to think I knew it all; experience has taught me that I was just another punk commie noob with delusions of grandeur."

I would say the majority of people here aren't really communists, even the Trotskysist aren't really Trotskyist. Most really aren't commited to the idea about what a class dictatorship entails and the revolution entails. If you're a Leninist, you really have to admit to yourself that your Leninist's parties prime goal is to grasp political power on the basis of a class revolution.

I get the feeling alot of people here come accross as libertarians but with some socialist principles, common property, free education, right to work. I think people really do not understand symbolic violence in todays society and the symbolic violence that would exist in a revolutionary society.

[the zizekian]

Good day.

Just wanted to say that I believe that this forum seems to be mainly there for having some petty party struggles, creating your own fantasy "groups" and "factions" and then arguing who was "scientifically" right in interpreting Marxism.

People argue about Stalin, Mao and Tito as if they had been there and under their rule in the time, while im pretty sure the people who do this on this forum consist mostly of westerners who have a revolutionary crush on these militaristic leaders. Why, i dont know. But none of these people take their literature with a pinch of salt - "Oh look, The CCP/Stalin/Lenin/Propaganda ministry" wrote this - It must be true!

They start a thread "what has comrade stalin done for us" or "The soviet union was a true workers state". Then they get all excited on how great soviet russia was etc, then the "anti-Stalinists" come (something people can actually agree on) and tell everybody "Wow stalin was such a bad guy, killed a lot of people etc" and then get rep points for standing against the bad stalinists.

How does this even matter in the real world? Arguing to and fro about the Soviet Union (which has crumbled) and Authoritarian leaders (who are dead) will not actually advance any leftist cause.

Lets face it - nobody likes all this retro-marxist crap, and instead of looking to 21st century problems of a highly advanced urbanised culture, many turn back and say: "Wow, great, lets embellish 20th century revolutionary ideals which were adapted to backward, semi-feudal culturally isolated countries!"

And when anybody comes along with anything vaguely new, they are labeled bourgeois reactionary class traitors etc (you know the deal).


Im asking myself: Why bother? What do these people contribute at all just by staying in their isolated little views? Arent you people just as "conservative" and intolerant as the people who you want to oust from power?

When i see what a lot of these sad "wannabe revolutionaries" post, i wanna tell them:
Take a good look at all the utter rubbish I see a lot of you churning out on a steady basis and actually THINK before you POST. The word "Stalin" and "Mao" will literally make people stop listening to you in any serious conversation about today's problems.


So I hope that all the people who keep going on the Stalinist/Soviet Union threads can realize that it is much more productive to just ignore these commie-conservatives and instead make new threads on the 21st century situation of workers and how to solve real problems. Posting again and again elaborate and factual replies on why Soviet Union failed - nobody cares, really. Been there, done that, and Stalinists refuse to acknowledge these "western conspiracy theories" - so why bother?!

To outsiders, im sure this faction squabbling and pseudo-scientific talking makes it look like the left is actually not a thread to anybody at the moment - they are too busy fighting amongst each other!

There will be no revolution without overcoming prejudices against communism.

[NGNM85]

I guess that kind of means what one says. For example, if someone posts something that is racist, misogynistic, homosexual-bashing speech, or speech that is hateful, threatening, fascist, anti-communist, anti-socialist (in the sense of being snooty and condescending, etc) these posters get restricted or banned.

Those kinds of things would get you Restricted or Banned, but you can also get Restricted or banned for all sorts of things. In fact; you can be an entirely consistent Socialist, Anarchist, Marxist, etc., and still be Restricted. I happen to know a thing or two about that.


This would go for any public message board.

Nit necessarily. Not to this degree. For example; I'm also a member of debate Politics forums, which is a nondenominational discussion forum. They have some stupid rules, but by and large, it's much more free and open than RevLeft. I've belonged to six, or seven webforums over the years, and, by far, RevLeft is the most restrictive. Hands down. The sad thing is it's so predictable.


For example, suppose you ran a forum for the protection of sexually abused children, and some guy from NAMBLA (National Advocacy of Man-Boy Love Association) came on and starts lambasting child porn laws...would you not kick this guy out?

I would certainly express my disagreement, quite strongly, I imagine. However; if said comments were on topic, and not obscene, or criminal; then I'd allow it. That's what it means to believe in free speech; to defend the right of people to express ideas you find, personally, abhorrent. Otherwise; you don't believe in it. Personally; I think we should shitcan the ideological purity test, and that infractions should be issued solely based on conduct.

[Rafiq]

There’s no such thing as a ‘Liberalist.’ There are only ‘Liberals.’


Christ, you are a fucking moron. The usage of the term, in modern times, "Liberal" is, as we all know, the faction of the Bourgeois class which aren't composed of Morons, and so on.

All Bourgeois Ideology (Even the mutations, such as Fascism) stems from Liberalism. So yes, Liberalists do exist, such as yourself. It's not enough to simply call you a Liberal, as this only includes a fraction of actual Liberalist thought. You're a Chomskyan, which makes you by definition not only a counter revolutionary Liberal, but a Social Conservative (http://citequote.com/136/jzx3z.html)

He's a Conservative Liberalist. He can go fuck himself, and you too.


I’m giving you the (undeserved) credit of entertaining the possibility that you are actually making an honest criticism, half-assed as it may be, as opposed to simply trying to irritate me.

Sorry you're irritated, scum bag. I don't give two fucks.


While Anarchism grew out of Classical Liberalism,

That doesn't mean anything. Communism grew out of reactionary Christian fundemantalism, that doesn't mean shit.

Of course, an idiot, and an Idealist like you wouldn't be able to articulate this fact: That Ideology is always adjusted to the interests of a certain class when in deployment, i.e. When Anarchism or Communism lived on, they were deployed in the interests of the proletarian class: Anarchism grew, in reality, out of the Socialist movement, not the Bourgeois Liberal one. Anarchism is a current of socialism, a branch. The other two factions, reside the Marxians and the Utopians (Of course Utopian Anarchists, do exist though). You, while still an "Anarchist", are a Bourgeois-Anarchist, just as Bourgeois-Socialism exists, the factions exist along with it (Bourgeois Anarchism, Bourgeois Utopianism).

Anarchism was never an Idea, which sought hegemony via the Proletarian class. That's absurd. Of course, you're a Bourgeois Idealist, so I don't expect you to know that.


one cannot simultaneously be an Anarchist, and a Liberal, in the modern context.

Fucking moron. You can't as the "Liberals" represent X current of dominant Bourgeois politics. But you can be a Bourgeois Anarchist (A Liberalist) like you. If you believe in Universalist, objective Human rights, objective morality on Freedoms, or, at the least, the necessity in universal circumstances for these freedoms, you are a Liberalist. That is one of the core ideological structural bases of Liberalism. Talks of "Liberty, Freedom, etc." are antithetical to the real Freedom: Emancipation. It's no surprise Marx cited Spartacus as our example.


The two are mutually exclusive.

Because you don't know what Liberalism is. (Hint: It isn't the same as when Liberalist Conservatives call their enemies "Liberals" for whatever reason).


Ergo; since you charge that I am a Liberal, then, for that to be true, I could not be an Anarchist.

You're a Bourgeois Anarchist, is all. Of course you can't be a revolutionary Anarchist. You're not. You probably never were.


To not be an Anarchist is to not satisfy the sufficient conditions of Anarchism.

What, the universalist, moralist structural basis of Anarchism? (Anti Authoritarianism, Power corrupts, Anti Hierarchy?) These don't mean shit. Just like the supposed basis of Communism (Equality) doesn't mean shit unless it's adjusted and deployed in the interests of the revolutionary class. To you, ideology is not a reflection of class, but of some asshole's thoughts and Ideas, and class, to you, is a mere expression of these thoughts. You're really a fucking moron.

You're so avidly anti religious, yet you're just as much religious as any, you're an Idealist. I don't see a distinction between a religious scholar and Idealist scum like you. Fuck yourself.


Therefore; my Anarchism, or, ‘Anarchism’, must be incomplete. That’s the only way it makes sense.

What a disgusting load of presupposions and assertions you've been spatting out. If we pressupose that Ideas are not the reflections of class, and are some kind of base, a measurement, that can be "Half assed" or "Incompelte" then perhaps there would be a grain of truth in your statement.

There is revolutionary Anarchism and Bourgeois anarchism. You fall into the category of the latter.


Otherwise; you’re just talking out of your ass. As you’ve never seriously attempted to demonstrate ideological inconsistency on my part, (Not in the least because such inconsistency exists.)

Fuck you, you piece of shit.


I never said you were inconsistent. You're an ideological consistent liberalist. There is no arguing otherwise.


You don't even read. I've successfully demonstrated that Ideological constistancy has nothing to do with any of this, in the above. You're a Bourgeois anarchist, and you're not Inconsistent. I don't give a shit if you want to say "Well, that's not real Anarchism, because Hierarchy". Yes, we know, you want a Bourgeoisie without the proletariat to support it, we get it. This doesn't mean shit, though.

Anarchism and Liberalism were never antithetical. Never. As a matter of fact, a lot of the moral and ethical pressuposions of Liberalism are inscribed in Anarchism.



and for several other reasons, I’m inclined to believe the latter. It's obvious, really.


Obvious to a Bourgeois-Idealist like you, you can't even articulate the basic principles of Materialism, that of which have never been discredited, and never will.


I have been exceptionally patient, and generous. You have been (and continue to be) hostile, and rude.


You've been worse. I'm being an asshole to you because you deserve it. Liberals are the worst, they are the scum of the Earth. You're not just a Liberalist, you're a Liberal (In the American sense). Your Anarchist Utopia to you, like Chomsky, is far off, therefore you adopt Liberal politics.

You're snotty, and you're elitist.


‘Snottiness’ is not a sufficient condition of being a Liberal.


It is the mark of a Liberal. Your politics confirm that you are indeed a Liberal, and this snottiness is just a further indication that you are.


Putting the rhetoric aside; you only prove Borz’s accusation regarding your true feelings about Anarchism. Anarchism is, by definition, Libertarian.

Of course it is. But those who refer to themselves implicitly as "Libertarians" are different all together then, say, those who unapoligetically identify as Revolutionary Anarchists, or, Insurrectionary Anarchists, at the least.

Nestor Makhno's Black Army, for example, I don't think I could classify as "Libertarian".

Words have different meanings and are used in different context. To call yourself a Phonecian in Lebanon implies not that you are just proud you're ancestors were powerful naval soldiers, it is the ideological mark of a Phalangist. Of course the Lebanese, for the most part, are "Phonecian". It's the context in which the word is used, by X person which sais a lot about them.

And in this same way, you're explicit usage of the term "Libertarian" (Chomskyan Shit) is counter revolutionary and the mark of a Bourgeois-Moralist Especially, at the very least, within the constraint of American politics. Especially.


(So are a number of Marxists.)

Yeah, the so-called "Libertarian Marxists" are like the "Marxist Humanists" and so on, these are not real Marxists, they abandon Scientific Socialism and Materialism in favor of Moralist garbage. Real Marxists know power does not "corrupt", and real Marxists are Materialists. Without this, the fuck if you can call yourself a "Marxist".


Therefore; if you’re opposed to Libertarianism, you must be opposed to Anarchism.

Jesus fucking Christ, your Bourgeois rationalism bleeds through your posts. Ideas do not mean anything, you fool. You don't understand the material dynamic behind these ideologies and therefore can say stupid things like "Well, according to Anarchist doctrine".

Hold on... What the hell does this even mean? This is what you should be asking.


You don’t have to be an Anarchist to be a Libertarian, but you absolutely do have to be a Libertarian to be an Anarchist.

We're talking about the usage of the term in modern context. If you're an American and you run around saying "I'm a Libertarian, guyz!", you're scum.

The Revolutionary Anarchism I know of abandons this fetish.


You might as well be honest about it; you hate Anarchism. That’s fine. I won't be joining your fan club anytime soon.


You wish I hated Anarchism, so you could pose as the Ideological representation of (revolutionary) Anarchism, so it could simply be Me, the Marxist, vs. You, the Anarchist, and Anarchism itself.

The fact that I don't recognize you as the embodiment of Revolutionary Anarchism threatens your very position in this "Debate".

Idealists do not just invent the ideological positions of their allies (For example, when Stalinists claim Stalin was not an Antisemite, even though he clearly was in his later years), they also invent the positions of their enemies.

It makes things much easier for them.


For whatever reason, you seem to have divided this paragraph into random sections, and, therefore, completely lost the meaning of what was being said.

I will not stand for this, disgusting shit load of assertions and pressuposions you want me to just give you. No, I will dissect your bullshit accordingly, I will choke your post and make the shit points you make bleed through the very text I am typing. Feel free to attempt to do the same thing.


I don’t want to waste a whole lot of time with this as it was a small point, and, really, irrelevant to the matter at hand.


It's very relevant. Remember the fucking topic of this forum? What does this forum do?


My logical conclusion, for which I was Restricted, was that, by the 6th, or 7th month there is no sufficient condition of a human being that a fetus lacks.

Yeah, go fuck yourself you humanist scum. Even if this was true, who gives a shit. Only a moralist scum sais a "Fetus" should be given human rights. If it isn't born yet, human being or not, it cannot force a Women to go through the painful procedure of giving birth to it, and dealing with it afterwards. It's born in her body, you've no right to give it a universal moralist "Right".

Hardly a revolutionary socialist position.


We can say this because human beings are biological organisms, therefore; who is, or is not a human being is an empirical, biological fact, which we can verify.

See, you presuppose all Human Beings reserve the right to life, no matter who has to suffer as compensation.

The Bourgeois, after the revolution, if they do not submit, and bow before the champions of the revolution (The proletarian class) and decide to resist, will be liquidated. They are human beings, but they will die.


Furthermore; by such time said fetus already possesses all of the biological prerequisites, namely; the neural architecture necessary to begin manifesting consciousness, or ‘proto-consciousness’, if you like.

And why, according to you, you dumb shit, does this make it immoral to abort it? Why? Because "God" said so? So much for an Atheist... You are still a theist, NGNM, you just replaced "God" with this Universal Moralist scroll of totality. What Humanists like to do.


I think you’d agree with the latter, at the very least, I know you agree with the former. Regardless; there’s simply no other way to see it.

Even if this was true, I don't give a shit. If a women doesn't want to go through the pain, or doesn't want to give birth, or have the child inside of her, to call her "Immoral" is counter revolutionary, Sexist, and something not even your Liberal associate's stoop so low in asserting. Really fucking pathetic.


That’s why I was Restricted. That’s the only reason I was Restricted.

Doubt it. Even if you did not hold those positions, I'd bet you'd be restricted anyway, because you're a Liberal in nature. You're a reform apologist, and even said that:

"When they get older, they will be able to enjoy and hold the rights in the freest country in the world (When speaking about Children's rights in the United States)". (Not exact quote, as it's from my memory, but almost exact, not so much in wording).


For having the temerity to speak the truth.

The truth? What truth? Fucking Objective Moralist asslicker. Fuck off and die.


Also; as I said, none of this is, in any way, inconsistent with Anarchism, or Marxism.

Revolutionary Anarchism and Marxism (even the most 'mechanical' of forms) are opposed to Sexism and Patriarchy (Marxists not for moral reasons, but as recognition of the Bourgeois family structure and role of Women in Bourgeois society, but even the Marxists who are Communists, Communists hold this position for Moral reasons, but Marxism and Communism are not the same, just as Mathematics and Communism are not, but not contradictory).

You are an apologist of it. You're essentially holding this Moralist view, that a Women should be forced to carry out the will of Men: Bear them a child.

Fuck you.


My crime was to contradict the official platform of this forum; 'RevLeftism', if you like.


Why do you even post here? You've contributed nothing of worth, in all the time you've been here.


You are right, however, that my statement was completely, as you say; ‘moralist.’ I dare say that I happen to be of the radical opinion that arbitrarily taking human life,

Yeah, we know you're a moralist. I didn't say it for no reason, I don't need your assurance that you are a Moralist. You are. End of story.

And this is not a "Radical" opinion. Radicalism is inherently Leftist (Leftist in the "Far Left": -(for your liberal mind to understand)-, sense). Something you lack and do not posses or adhere to, as you're a Liberalist, a Social Conservative, and an ideological dog of the Bourgeois class.


or, in a word; murder, is wrong. That’s just going to be an impasse.


Then you're a counter revolutionary. Indeed, murder on a mass scale will precede the revolution on the behalf of the champions who for filled it. The reaction will be drowned in a sea of blood, human or not.

I support Terror, not Humanism.

"The question must be: Humanism or Terror? With terror being the positive, and Humanism the negative!"

Being a human does not qualify you as except from being put down.


Incidentally; I don’t categorically oppose hierarchy, or authority, only authoritarianism.


What right do you have defining this, if you are, as you say "Opposed to Authority". You do not reserve this right.

Then again, you're an Idealist scum who cannot even articulate this fact: That this is a grossly subjective statement, that you are asserting.



Eloquent in it’s brevity. You must have stayed up all night to compose this masterpiece.


One doesn't require effort to realize your posts are shit, and you are a liberal scum, therefore it doesn't require much time to conjure a rebuttal: That you are a Liberal Shit bag.


One wonders why you would even bother making such a statement. Do you honestly believe that I would grant your request?

It was not for you, it was for everyone to see. I'm not the only one who wants you to stop posting. Though, you'll get banned, sooner or later. I can almost sense it.


What, because you’ve been so fucking delightful? If anything; you’ve just strengthened my resolve.


Go cry about it, you sensitive Liberal fuck.

The Liberals may very well be the first to be put against the wall. That's how it was in Bolshevik Russia.


Have a nice day.


Fuck yourself and die. You're an intellectual failure, a Bourgeois-Liberal, an Idealist, and a rodent. Just like the scumbag named Chomsky. The worst of all so-called "leftists".

[Revolution starts with U]

It was not for you, it was for everyone to see. I'm not the only one who wants you to stop posting. Though, you'll get banned, sooner or later. I can almost sense it.


So what you are saying is that we do, in fact, ban people not for any breaking of the rules, but because of petty personal issues... and you're okay with that?

[the zizekian]

Good day.

Just wanted to say that I believe that this forum seems to be mainly there for having some petty party struggles, creating your own fantasy "groups" and "factions" and then arguing who was "scientifically" right in interpreting Marxism.

People argue about Stalin, Mao and Tito as if they had been there and under their rule in the time, while im pretty sure the people who do this on this forum consist mostly of westerners who have a revolutionary crush on these militaristic leaders. Why, i dont know. But none of these people take their literature with a pinch of salt - "Oh look, The CCP/Stalin/Lenin/Propaganda ministry" wrote this - It must be true!

They start a thread "what has comrade stalin done for us" or "The soviet union was a true workers state". Then they get all excited on how great soviet russia was etc, then the "anti-Stalinists" come (something people can actually agree on) and tell everybody "Wow stalin was such a bad guy, killed a lot of people etc" and then get rep points for standing against the bad stalinists.

How does this even matter in the real world? Arguing to and fro about the Soviet Union (which has crumbled) and Authoritarian leaders (who are dead) will not actually advance any leftist cause.

Lets face it - nobody likes all this retro-marxist crap, and instead of looking to 21st century problems of a highly advanced urbanised culture, many turn back and say: "Wow, great, lets embellish 20th century revolutionary ideals which were adapted to backward, semi-feudal culturally isolated countries!"

And when anybody comes along with anything vaguely new, they are labeled bourgeois reactionary class traitors etc (you know the deal).


Im asking myself: Why bother? What do these people contribute at all just by staying in their isolated little views? Arent you people just as "conservative" and intolerant as the people who you want to oust from power?

When i see what a lot of these sad "wannabe revolutionaries" post, i wanna tell them:
Take a good look at all the utter rubbish I see a lot of you churning out on a steady basis and actually THINK before you POST. The word "Stalin" and "Mao" will literally make people stop listening to you in any serious conversation about today's problems.


So I hope that all the people who keep going on the Stalinist/Soviet Union threads can realize that it is much more productive to just ignore these commie-conservatives and instead make new threads on the 21st century situation of workers and how to solve real problems. Posting again and again elaborate and factual replies on why Soviet Union failed - nobody cares, really. Been there, done that, and Stalinists refuse to acknowledge these "western conspiracy theories" - so why bother?!

To outsiders, im sure this faction squabbling and pseudo-scientific talking makes it look like the left is actually not a thread to anybody at the moment - they are too busy fighting amongst each other!

You show yourself that it is impossible to ignore what is frustrating us.

[Ele'ill]

revleft exists so that I have a place to share rare lady gaga dubstep/remix tracks

[the zizekian]

Good day.

Just wanted to say that I believe that this forum seems to be mainly there for having some petty party struggles, creating your own fantasy "groups" and "factions" and then arguing who was "scientifically" right in interpreting Marxism.

People argue about Stalin, Mao and Tito as if they had been there and under their rule in the time, while im pretty sure the people who do this on this forum consist mostly of westerners who have a revolutionary crush on these militaristic leaders. Why, i dont know. But none of these people take their literature with a pinch of salt - "Oh look, The CCP/Stalin/Lenin/Propaganda ministry" wrote this - It must be true!

They start a thread "what has comrade stalin done for us" or "The soviet union was a true workers state". Then they get all excited on how great soviet russia was etc, then the "anti-Stalinists" come (something people can actually agree on) and tell everybody "Wow stalin was such a bad guy, killed a lot of people etc" and then get rep points for standing against the bad stalinists.

How does this even matter in the real world? Arguing to and fro about the Soviet Union (which has crumbled) and Authoritarian leaders (who are dead) will not actually advance any leftist cause.

Lets face it - nobody likes all this retro-marxist crap, and instead of looking to 21st century problems of a highly advanced urbanised culture, many turn back and say: "Wow, great, lets embellish 20th century revolutionary ideals which were adapted to backward, semi-feudal culturally isolated countries!"

And when anybody comes along with anything vaguely new, they are labeled bourgeois reactionary class traitors etc (you know the deal).


Im asking myself: Why bother? What do these people contribute at all just by staying in their isolated little views? Arent you people just as "conservative" and intolerant as the people who you want to oust from power?

When i see what a lot of these sad "wannabe revolutionaries" post, i wanna tell them:
Take a good look at all the utter rubbish I see a lot of you churning out on a steady basis and actually THINK before you POST. The word "Stalin" and "Mao" will literally make people stop listening to you in any serious conversation about today's problems.


So I hope that all the people who keep going on the Stalinist/Soviet Union threads can realize that it is much more productive to just ignore these commie-conservatives and instead make new threads on the 21st century situation of workers and how to solve real problems. Posting again and again elaborate and factual replies on why Soviet Union failed - nobody cares, really. Been there, done that, and Stalinists refuse to acknowledge these "western conspiracy theories" - so why bother?!

To outsiders, im sure this faction squabbling and pseudo-scientific talking makes it look like the left is actually not a thread to anybody at the moment - they are too busy fighting amongst each other!

How about doing a revolution!?

[Revolution starts with U]

Yeah, the so-called "Libertarian Marxists" are like the "Marxist Humanists" and so on, these are not real Marxists, they abandon Scientific Socialism and Materialism in favor of Moralist garbage. Real Marxists know power does not "corrupt", and real Marxists are Materialists. Without this, the fuck if you can call yourself a "Marxist".

To be fair, I think you can be a libertarian and not subscribe to the "power corrupts" theory.
<~~ case in point. I think communism will be quite libertarian. But if it's not, that's cool too.



The Bourgeois, after the revolution, if they do not submit, and bow before the champions of the revolution (The proletarian class) and decide to resist, will be liquidated. They are human beings, but they will die.

This is actually a good point to make, not only to libertarian, but to people in general. Even tho I would loathe to see the mass liquidation of human life to come of this... if it's what happens, it's what happens. There's simply no telling what will be necessary to overthrow the current world order.
People who are (structurally) placed in a position of submission to a dominator are going to react, to varying degrees of resistance. If they feel oppressed enough, and have the economic means to carry it out, may just implement mass scale death against their enemies.
If you are not okay with this fact (don't get me wrong, you can still prefer it more peaceful) you really have to ask yourself how deep your "revolutionary" spirit goes.



Why do you even post here? You've contributed nothing of worth, in all the time you've been here.

That's not true :lol:

Again, the wantonly violent views expressed by Rafiq are not the preferred means of Revolution for someone such as myself. We [I]may[I] have to liquidate the bourgeoisie physically, we don't have to.

[the zizekian]

Good day.

Just wanted to say that I believe that this forum seems to be mainly there for having some petty party struggles, creating your own fantasy "groups" and "factions" and then arguing who was "scientifically" right in interpreting Marxism.

People argue about Stalin, Mao and Tito as if they had been there and under their rule in the time, while im pretty sure the people who do this on this forum consist mostly of westerners who have a revolutionary crush on these militaristic leaders. Why, i dont know. But none of these people take their literature with a pinch of salt - "Oh look, The CCP/Stalin/Lenin/Propaganda ministry" wrote this - It must be true!

They start a thread "what has comrade stalin done for us" or "The soviet union was a true workers state". Then they get all excited on how great soviet russia was etc, then the "anti-Stalinists" come (something people can actually agree on) and tell everybody "Wow stalin was such a bad guy, killed a lot of people etc" and then get rep points for standing against the bad stalinists.

How does this even matter in the real world? Arguing to and fro about the Soviet Union (which has crumbled) and Authoritarian leaders (who are dead) will not actually advance any leftist cause.

Lets face it - nobody likes all this retro-marxist crap, and instead of looking to 21st century problems of a highly advanced urbanised culture, many turn back and say: "Wow, great, lets embellish 20th century revolutionary ideals which were adapted to backward, semi-feudal culturally isolated countries!"

And when anybody comes along with anything vaguely new, they are labeled bourgeois reactionary class traitors etc (you know the deal).


Im asking myself: Why bother? What do these people contribute at all just by staying in their isolated little views? Arent you people just as "conservative" and intolerant as the people who you want to oust from power?

When i see what a lot of these sad "wannabe revolutionaries" post, i wanna tell them:
Take a good look at all the utter rubbish I see a lot of you churning out on a steady basis and actually THINK before you POST. The word "Stalin" and "Mao" will literally make people stop listening to you in any serious conversation about today's problems.


So I hope that all the people who keep going on the Stalinist/Soviet Union threads can realize that it is much more productive to just ignore these commie-conservatives and instead make new threads on the 21st century situation of workers and how to solve real problems. Posting again and again elaborate and factual replies on why Soviet Union failed - nobody cares, really. Been there, done that, and Stalinists refuse to acknowledge these "western conspiracy theories" - so why bother?!

To outsiders, im sure this faction squabbling and pseudo-scientific talking makes it look like the left is actually not a thread to anybody at the moment - they are too busy fighting amongst each other!

Not ignoring Marxism is courageous.

[Rafiq]

So what you are saying is that we do, in fact, ban people not for any breaking of the rules, but because of petty personal issues... and you're okay with that?

Petty Personal issues? He may be banned eventually. Perhaps. And I don't have a problem with it.

[Revolution starts with U]

Petty Personal issues? He may be banned eventually. Perhaps. And I don't have a problem with it.

Fair enough. My mistake :cool:

[the zizekian]

Not ignoring Marxism is courageous.

This courage is essential to do a revolution.

[Klaatu]

Those kinds of things would get you Restricted or Banned, but you can also get Restricted or banned for all sorts of things. In fact; you can be an entirely consistent Socialist, Anarchist, Marxist, etc., and still be Restricted. I happen to know a thing or two about that.


OK I'll bite. What did you post that got you banned?

[the zizekian]

Good day.

Just wanted to say that I believe that this forum seems to be mainly there for having some petty party struggles, creating your own fantasy "groups" and "factions" and then arguing who was "scientifically" right in interpreting Marxism.

People argue about Stalin, Mao and Tito as if they had been there and under their rule in the time, while im pretty sure the people who do this on this forum consist mostly of westerners who have a revolutionary crush on these militaristic leaders. Why, i dont know. But none of these people take their literature with a pinch of salt - "Oh look, The CCP/Stalin/Lenin/Propaganda ministry" wrote this - It must be true!

They start a thread "what has comrade stalin done for us" or "The soviet union was a true workers state". Then they get all excited on how great soviet russia was etc, then the "anti-Stalinists" come (something people can actually agree on) and tell everybody "Wow stalin was such a bad guy, killed a lot of people etc" and then get rep points for standing against the bad stalinists.

How does this even matter in the real world? Arguing to and fro about the Soviet Union (which has crumbled) and Authoritarian leaders (who are dead) will not actually advance any leftist cause.

Lets face it - nobody likes all this retro-marxist crap, and instead of looking to 21st century problems of a highly advanced urbanised culture, many turn back and say: "Wow, great, lets embellish 20th century revolutionary ideals which were adapted to backward, semi-feudal culturally isolated countries!"

And when anybody comes along with anything vaguely new, they are labeled bourgeois reactionary class traitors etc (you know the deal).


Im asking myself: Why bother? What do these people contribute at all just by staying in their isolated little views? Arent you people just as "conservative" and intolerant as the people who you want to oust from power?

When i see what a lot of these sad "wannabe revolutionaries" post, i wanna tell them:
Take a good look at all the utter rubbish I see a lot of you churning out on a steady basis and actually THINK before you POST. The word "Stalin" and "Mao" will literally make people stop listening to you in any serious conversation about today's problems.


So I hope that all the people who keep going on the Stalinist/Soviet Union threads can realize that it is much more productive to just ignore these commie-conservatives and instead make new threads on the 21st century situation of workers and how to solve real problems. Posting again and again elaborate and factual replies on why Soviet Union failed - nobody cares, really. Been there, done that, and Stalinists refuse to acknowledge these "western conspiracy theories" - so why bother?!

To outsiders, im sure this faction squabbling and pseudo-scientific talking makes it look like the left is actually not a thread to anybody at the moment - they are too busy fighting amongst each other!

Wishing for censorship is wishing for Stalinism.

[Stadtsmasher]

I'm still finding my way around this forum but as a Marxist I can tell you one thing it "does" - It makes me feel less lonely in my struggle!

[the zizekian]

Good day.

Just wanted to say that I believe that this forum seems to be mainly there for having some petty party struggles, creating your own fantasy "groups" and "factions" and then arguing who was "scientifically" right in interpreting Marxism.

People argue about Stalin, Mao and Tito as if they had been there and under their rule in the time, while im pretty sure the people who do this on this forum consist mostly of westerners who have a revolutionary crush on these militaristic leaders. Why, i dont know. But none of these people take their literature with a pinch of salt - "Oh look, The CCP/Stalin/Lenin/Propaganda ministry" wrote this - It must be true!

They start a thread "what has comrade stalin done for us" or "The soviet union was a true workers state". Then they get all excited on how great soviet russia was etc, then the "anti-Stalinists" come (something people can actually agree on) and tell everybody "Wow stalin was such a bad guy, killed a lot of people etc" and then get rep points for standing against the bad stalinists.

How does this even matter in the real world? Arguing to and fro about the Soviet Union (which has crumbled) and Authoritarian leaders (who are dead) will not actually advance any leftist cause.

Lets face it - nobody likes all this retro-marxist crap, and instead of looking to 21st century problems of a highly advanced urbanised culture, many turn back and say: "Wow, great, lets embellish 20th century revolutionary ideals which were adapted to backward, semi-feudal culturally isolated countries!"

And when anybody comes along with anything vaguely new, they are labeled bourgeois reactionary class traitors etc (you know the deal).


Im asking myself: Why bother? What do these people contribute at all just by staying in their isolated little views? Arent you people just as "conservative" and intolerant as the people who you want to oust from power?

When i see what a lot of these sad "wannabe revolutionaries" post, i wanna tell them:
Take a good look at all the utter rubbish I see a lot of you churning out on a steady basis and actually THINK before you POST. The word "Stalin" and "Mao" will literally make people stop listening to you in any serious conversation about today's problems.


So I hope that all the people who keep going on the Stalinist/Soviet Union threads can realize that it is much more productive to just ignore these commie-conservatives and instead make new threads on the 21st century situation of workers and how to solve real problems. Posting again and again elaborate and factual replies on why Soviet Union failed - nobody cares, really. Been there, done that, and Stalinists refuse to acknowledge these "western conspiracy theories" - so why bother?!

To outsiders, im sure this faction squabbling and pseudo-scientific talking makes it look like the left is actually not a thread to anybody at the moment - they are too busy fighting amongst each other!

Communism is not old, it’s eternal!

[Drosophila]

Could you stop spamming this thread? Quoting the original post over and over and adding a 1-line comment to it is spam.

[the zizekian]

Could you stop spamming this thread? Quoting the original post over and over and adding a 1-line comment to it is spam.

You spam.

[the zizekian]

ok

Back to the topic!

[NGNM85]

OK I'll bite. What did you post that got you banned?

Restricted.

I really didn't want to divert the thread with this, but since it's basically turned into a complete clusterfuck, I'll bite. I was Restricted for having an excessively nuanced position on abortion. Basically, as a Metaphysical Materialist, I believe human beings are organisms, therefore the determination of who, or what is, or isn't a human being is an empirical, biological question. Following from that conclusion, I argued, by the 6th, or 7th month mark a fetus posesses all of the sufficient biological conditions (Being the only conditions that matter.) of a human being, and, therefore; it has rights. It was little more involved than that, but that's the Reader's Digest version. Not only is this the only logical conclusion, but it's not, in any way, fundamentally antithetical to Anarchism, etc.

[the zizekian]

Good day.

Just wanted to say that I believe that this forum seems to be mainly there for having some petty party struggles, creating your own fantasy "groups" and "factions" and then arguing who was "scientifically" right in interpreting Marxism.

People argue about Stalin, Mao and Tito as if they had been there and under their rule in the time, while im pretty sure the people who do this on this forum consist mostly of westerners who have a revolutionary crush on these militaristic leaders. Why, i dont know. But none of these people take their literature with a pinch of salt - "Oh look, The CCP/Stalin/Lenin/Propaganda ministry" wrote this - It must be true!

They start a thread "what has comrade stalin done for us" or "The soviet union was a true workers state". Then they get all excited on how great soviet russia was etc, then the "anti-Stalinists" come (something people can actually agree on) and tell everybody "Wow stalin was such a bad guy, killed a lot of people etc" and then get rep points for standing against the bad stalinists.

How does this even matter in the real world? Arguing to and fro about the Soviet Union (which has crumbled) and Authoritarian leaders (who are dead) will not actually advance any leftist cause.

Lets face it - nobody likes all this retro-marxist crap, and instead of looking to 21st century problems of a highly advanced urbanised culture, many turn back and say: "Wow, great, lets embellish 20th century revolutionary ideals which were adapted to backward, semi-feudal culturally isolated countries!"

And when anybody comes along with anything vaguely new, they are labeled bourgeois reactionary class traitors etc (you know the deal).


Im asking myself: Why bother? What do these people contribute at all just by staying in their isolated little views? Arent you people just as "conservative" and intolerant as the people who you want to oust from power?

When i see what a lot of these sad "wannabe revolutionaries" post, i wanna tell them:
Take a good look at all the utter rubbish I see a lot of you churning out on a steady basis and actually THINK before you POST. The word "Stalin" and "Mao" will literally make people stop listening to you in any serious conversation about today's problems.


So I hope that all the people who keep going on the Stalinist/Soviet Union threads can realize that it is much more productive to just ignore these commie-conservatives and instead make new threads on the 21st century situation of workers and how to solve real problems. Posting again and again elaborate and factual replies on why Soviet Union failed - nobody cares, really. Been there, done that, and Stalinists refuse to acknowledge these "western conspiracy theories" - so why bother?!

To outsiders, im sure this faction squabbling and pseudo-scientific talking makes it look like the left is actually not a thread to anybody at the moment - they are too busy fighting amongst each other!

We need to return to fundamental matters.

[NGNM85]

So what you are saying is that we do, in fact, ban people not for any breaking of the rules, but because of petty personal issues... and you're okay with that?

I don't see why this should come as a surprise. There's clearly a great deal of favoritism when it comes to applying the forum policies. One of the mods even told me, flat-out, that I should be Restricted, regardless of the rules, entirely on the basis of some personal vedetta, on the nature of which I can only speculate. In fairness, I admit that I, actually, did, in fact, violate forum policy, (Because it's irrational, wrong, etc.) but that's beside the point.

Rafiq is also a liar, in addition to many of his other repellant traits, he, and his cohorts maintain 'hit lists' of members judged to be ideologically impure to be purged from the forum. You can find it fairly easily. I figure quite prominently in their little discussions. I take it as a badge of honor, in some ways.

[W1N5T0N]

yes, clusterfuck seems about right after people started arguing about EVERY.SINGLE.F*CKING.LINE their opponent wrote. (no names...rafiq... *glares*)

oh well.:rolleyes:

[the zizekian]

yes, clusterfuck seems about right after people started arguing about EVERY.SINGLE.F*CKING.LINE their opponent wrote. (no names...rafiq... *glares*)

oh well.:rolleyes:

Defend what you declare!

[Klaatu]

Restricted.

I really didn't want to divert the thread with this, but since it's basically turned into a complete clusterfuck, I'll bite. I was Restricted for having an excessively nuanced position on abortion. Basically, as a Metaphysical Materialist, I believe human beings are organisms, therefore the determination of who, or what is, or isn't a human being is an empirical, biological question. Following from that conclusion, I argued, by the 6th, or 7th month mark a fetus posesses all of the sufficient biological conditions (Being the only conditions that matter.) of a human being, and, therefore; it has rights. It was little more involved than that, but that's the Reader's Digest version. Not only is this the only logical conclusion, but it's not, in any way, fundamentally antithetical to Anarchism, etc.


I see your point, but technically you did break the forum rules, which explicitly state that all abortions should be legal at any time, for any reason, by any woman. Personally, I stay away from debate on this issue, as I don't care one way or the other. I am more concerned with social issues such as what happens to a child after it is born. That always seems to be an issue which pro-life people seem to conveniently ignore.

[the zizekian]

Good day.

Just wanted to say that I believe that this forum seems to be mainly there for having some petty party struggles, creating your own fantasy "groups" and "factions" and then arguing who was "scientifically" right in interpreting Marxism.

People argue about Stalin, Mao and Tito as if they had been there and under their rule in the time, while im pretty sure the people who do this on this forum consist mostly of westerners who have a revolutionary crush on these militaristic leaders. Why, i dont know. But none of these people take their literature with a pinch of salt - "Oh look, The CCP/Stalin/Lenin/Propaganda ministry" wrote this - It must be true!

They start a thread "what has comrade stalin done for us" or "The soviet union was a true workers state". Then they get all excited on how great soviet russia was etc, then the "anti-Stalinists" come (something people can actually agree on) and tell everybody "Wow stalin was such a bad guy, killed a lot of people etc" and then get rep points for standing against the bad stalinists.

How does this even matter in the real world? Arguing to and fro about the Soviet Union (which has crumbled) and Authoritarian leaders (who are dead) will not actually advance any leftist cause.

Lets face it - nobody likes all this retro-marxist crap, and instead of looking to 21st century problems of a highly advanced urbanised culture, many turn back and say: "Wow, great, lets embellish 20th century revolutionary ideals which were adapted to backward, semi-feudal culturally isolated countries!"

And when anybody comes along with anything vaguely new, they are labeled bourgeois reactionary class traitors etc (you know the deal).


Im asking myself: Why bother? What do these people contribute at all just by staying in their isolated little views? Arent you people just as "conservative" and intolerant as the people who you want to oust from power?

When i see what a lot of these sad "wannabe revolutionaries" post, i wanna tell them:
Take a good look at all the utter rubbish I see a lot of you churning out on a steady basis and actually THINK before you POST. The word "Stalin" and "Mao" will literally make people stop listening to you in any serious conversation about today's problems.


So I hope that all the people who keep going on the Stalinist/Soviet Union threads can realize that it is much more productive to just ignore these commie-conservatives and instead make new threads on the 21st century situation of workers and how to solve real problems. Posting again and again elaborate and factual replies on why Soviet Union failed - nobody cares, really. Been there, done that, and Stalinists refuse to acknowledge these "western conspiracy theories" - so why bother?!

To outsiders, im sure this faction squabbling and pseudo-scientific talking makes it look like the left is actually not a thread to anybody at the moment - they are too busy fighting amongst each other!

I could have written such naive moaning when I was still very young.

[W1N5T0N]

Oh, yes, forgive me, i'll go back to marxist kindergarden then...

f off...

[the zizekian]

Oh, yes, forgive me, i'll go back to marxist kindergarden then...

f off...

Stalin is needed here!

[W1N5T0N]

Gaiety is the most outstanding feature of the Soviet Union.
Joseph Stalin

[the zizekian]

Gaiety is the most outstanding feature of the Soviet Union.
Joseph Stalin

Now that's a wake-up!

[NGNM85]

I see your point, but technically you did break the forum rules, which explicitly state that all abortions should be legal at any time, for any reason, by any woman.

Granted. I’ve already conceded that. However; said comments were not, as you said; ‘racist, misogynistic, homosexual-bashing speech, or speech that is hateful, threatening, fascist, anti-communist,’ or ‘anti-socialist.’ The aforementioned statements also were not (As the FAQ charges.) sexist, in any sense. This only demonstrates that the author(s) don’t understand the concept of sexism. (This is probably why they, apparently, did not notice that the rule, as written, is explicitly sexist, itself.)That’s also completely consistent with what I said from the beginning; that while expressing opinions that are antithetical to socialism can get you Restricted, or Banned, you can also be Restricted, or Banned for expressing opinions that are completely consistent with Socialism.


Personally, I stay away from debate on this issue, as I don't care one way or the other.

I don’t want to imply that you’re being disingenuous, but I find that difficult to believe. However; it’s probably just as well. Honestly; I would strongly caution anyone to think carefully before posting on this subject, as it may carry serious consequences.

Regardless of your personal feelings, the rule, as written, doesn’t actually make sense. It’s a paradox. There are also a number of other problems, but this really isn’t the place.


I am more concerned with social issues such as what happens to a child after it is born. That always seems to be an issue which pro-life people seem to conveniently ignore.

It’s not a zero-sum game.

That’s true enough. However; my biggest philosophical gripe with the Pro-Life movement is this absurd belief in magic essences, which is, in truth, the entire reason for it’s existence.

Again; this is really not the time, or the place.

[the zizekian]

Granted. I’ve already conceded that. However; said comments were not, as you said; ‘racist, misogynistic, homosexual-bashing speech, or speech that is hateful, threatening, fascist, anti-communist,’ or ‘anti-socialist.’ The aforementioned statements also were not (As the FAQ charges.) sexist, in any sense. This only demonstrates that the author(s) don’t understand the concept of sexism. (This is probably why they, apparently, did not notice that the rule, as written, is explicitly sexist, itself.)That’s also completely consistent with what I said from the beginning; that while expressing opinions that are antithetical to socialism can get you Restricted, or Banned, you can also be Restricted, or Banned for expressing opinions that are completely consistent with Socialism.



I don’t want to imply that you’re being disingenuous, but I find that difficult to believe. However; it’s probably just as well. Honestly; I would strongly caution anyone to think carefully before posting on this subject, as it may carry serious consequences.

Regardless of your personal feelings, the rule, as written, doesn’t actually make sense. It’s a paradox. There are also a number of other problems, but this really isn’t the place.



It’s not a zero-sum game.

That’s true enough. However; my biggest philosophical gripe with the Pro-Life movement is this absurd belief in magic essences, which is, in truth, the entire reason for it’s existence.

Again; this is really not the time, or the place.

Not related to the opening post.

[Klaatu]

I don’t want to imply that you’re being disingenuous, but I find that difficult to believe.

By suggesting that I am "being disingenuous" for disengaging myself of debate on the abortion issue shows that you really do think that I am being disingenuous for not giving a shit about the issue. Well you can believe it, because I really do not give a shit about the abortion issue.

I have bigger fish to fry. :p

[the zizekian]

By suggesting that I am "being disingenuous" for disengaging myself of debate on the abortion issue shows that you really do think that I am being disingenuous for not giving a shit about the issue. Well you can believe it, because I really do not give a shit about the abortion issue.

I have bigger fish to fry. :p

off-topic

[MotherCossack]

what is the point of me?
what is the point of you?
what is the point of this?
what is the point of that?
in fact..... what is the point of life?

but then... who cares?

[the zizekian]

what is the point of me?
what is the point of you?
what is the point of this?
what is the point of that?
in fact..... what is the point of life?

but then... who cares?

off-topic

[Klaatu]

off-topic

Not really. The OP's question was "What does this forum do? " NGNM85 said that he got banned, and I asked why, and he gave a reason.
That is actually on-topic, because it helps answer the question: "What does this forum do? "

Forums are discussions. These often go to other topics, as conversations sometimes do.

[the zizekian]

Not really. The OP's question was "What does this forum do? " NGNM85 said that he got banned, and I asked why, and he gave a reason.
That is actually on-topic, because it helps answer the question: "What does this forum do? "

Forums are discussions. These often go to other topics, as conversations sometimes do.

The OP is specific.

[ParaRevolutionary]

This forum does nothing more than perpetuate the division of the left.

[the zizekian]

This forum does nothing more than perpetuate the division of the left.

If so, it's all good!

[ParaRevolutionary]

If so, it's all good!

Trolling?

[Bronco]

This forum does nothing more than perpetuate the division of the left.

Wouldn't say it perpetuates it, just reflects it

[the zizekian]

Wouldn't say it perpetuates it, just reflects it

Reflects are prolongation.

[Klaatu]

The OP is specific.

Quite true. But posters sometimes do get banned from message boards. Thus it is relevant to discussion.

But that's as far as it goes. To take it into far-off tangents loses the message. That's why I've said all I will say on the reasons for NGNM's restriction. Done. ;)

[the zizekian]

Back (up) to topic!

[NGNM85]

By suggesting that I am "being disingenuous" for disengaging myself of debate on the abortion issue shows that you really do think that I am being disingenuous for not giving a shit about the issue.

You're not wrong.


Well you can believe it, because I really do not give a shit about the abortion issue.

I have bigger fish to fry. :p

Very well. I won't press it any further.

[Remus Bleys]

One of the users, EdvardK, who was arguing in favor of Tito, really did live in Tito's Yugoslavia.

[synthesis]

Jesus Christ, why did you resurrect this of all threads? This might be the worst thread I've ever seen (although I generally agree with the OP).

[Sam_b]

Necroing threads from a year ago? Come on, really?

Closed