Biggest revleft pet peeves

[Lobotomy]

I hate it when someone asks a question about a historical event and someone answers, "x did y because of the material conditions." That doesn't *mean* anything by itself. You're just talking out of your ass.

[Quail]

I just hate how whenever feminism is discussed, some secret revleft sexists come out of the woodwork to derail any useful discussion.

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

When people thank my infraction. Douchebags.....

Or when I get infracted for something I didn't mean to be sexist. All of my infractions have been for sexism. Sorry.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

I hate whenever you talk about trying to get about the spesfics requirements of a revolution, you know, getting the guns, training, organizing, funding, the things you need to overthrow a government and some idiot who is pretending to be an ultra-left comes by and says "but guise, the working class has to learn spontaneously themselves how to destroy tanks and avoid drone strikes, y u so subsitutionist". As if the proletariat exist in any meaningful way other than as a relationship to the mode of production prior to the dictatorship of the proletariat, and that somehow this relationship will give them knowledge of how to fight technological innovations that the military has been perfecting for decades.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

I just hate how whenever feminism is discussed, some secret revleft sexists come out of the woodwork to derail any useful discussion.

I hate that, this happens more on r/socialism more but half the time it goes like this:


Me: So racism/sexism is bad, we should fight it or something like that

SEP Trot: But we can't abolish racism/sexism until we abolish capitalism, so let's ignore that. Besides it'll gradually fade away eventually.

Me: So we shouldn't support anti-sexual violence laws/ anti-hate speech laws because it'll fade away eventually? What about woman who are getting raped now?

SEP trot: Well racism and sexism just divides the working class so stop dividing the working class.

Me: So we should ignore lynchings when poor people do them?

SEP trot: Exactly! Now you're getting it!

Me: Sounds kinda racist to me.......

SEP Trot: How dare you call me racist! You are offending the good name of my party! All of this talk of racism is so racist, why are you alienating the white working class so much? Can't you see that all this talk of racism is hurting there feelings? You must dislike white people! Is it because you are racist? Ha I knew it!

Me: Erm, I don't think you understand what systematic racism is.....

SEP Trot: Shut up racist! Oh yea and buy my newspaper please.

[Pretty Flaco]

not enough fun

[Kalinin's Facial Hair]

Oh yea and buy my newspaper please.

So typical it hurts.

[Os Cangaceiros]

When people on here try to sound hard and shit, and fetishize violence the same way that pacifists fetishize non-violence. :rolleyes:

[Pretty Flaco]

When people on here try to sound hard and shit, and fetishize violence the same way that pacifists fetishize non-violence. :rolleyes:

every rep point for me is a rep for my set

[Yuppie Grinder]

When people give answers when they should be asking questions.
A good percentage of people on here don't know the definition of socialism given by Marx and argue that places like Chavez's Venezuela or Mao's China were socialist with appeals to Marxist purity and accusing their opponents of being impure Marxists.
I don't really care about the anti-revisionist theoretical purity pissing game, but this does get on my nerves.

[homegrown terror]

when people use such-and-such book or essay the same way christians use their bible: always siding with scripture rather than using logic and thinking for themselves.

[MP5]

When people go on and on about material conditions being the only reason that such and such a thing happened because you know someone else couldn't have made a better choice and have dealt with the material conditions in a different way possibly leading to a different outcome. The politically correct bullshit pisses me off to no fucking end at all! Oh their poor virgin ears to hear such gritty words :rolleyes:

Also i am starting to understand why Marxist-Leninists dislike Trotskyists. How did a perfectly good revolutionary like Trotsky get his name tagged to such a whiny bunch of stuck ups?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I hate that, this happens more on r/socialism more but half the time it goes like this:


Me: So racism/sexism is bad, we should fight it or something like that

SEP Trot: But we can't abolish racism/sexism until we abolish capitalism, so let's ignore that. Besides it'll gradually fade away eventually.

Me: So we shouldn't support anti-sexual violence laws/ anti-hate speech laws because it'll fade away eventually? What about woman who are getting raped now?

SEP trot: Well racism and sexism just divides the working class so stop dividing the working class.

Me: So we should ignore lynchings when poor people do them?

SEP trot: Exactly! Now you're getting it!

Me: Sounds kinda racist to me.......

SEP Trot: How dare you call me racist! You are offending the good name of my party! All of this talk of racism is so racist, why are you alienating the white working class so much? Can't you see that all this talk of racism is hurting there feelings? You must dislike white people! Is it because you are racist? Ha I knew it!

Me: Erm, I don't think you understand what systematic racism is.....

SEP Trot: Shut up racist! Oh yea and buy my newspaper please.

Please, please tell me this is exaggerated. I know that there are Trots that are racist, homophobic, misogynist and transphobic scum, but this has to be the most ridiculous things I have ever heard. "You must dislike white people"?

No, actually it might be the second most ridiculous thing I have ever heard; the first would be when a Serbian Trotskyist group opposed any police repression of a fascist gathering because... I don't know. I would even understand if the Trotskyists planned to come and bash some fascist faces in themselves but no, they just wanted the poor fascists to be left alone I guess.

My biggest pet peeve? Probably the Trotsky/Stalin/Mao/Hoxha/Cliff/whatever debates, but serious members tend not to participate in them. Also, whenever people condemn Stalin, Hoxha and others, not for anything related to the course of the revolution and proletarian liberation, but because they killed people.

I don't know what's happening to me anymore. I seem to have caught some sort of bacillus that causes anti-revisionism.


Also i am starting to understand why Marxist-Leninists dislike Trotskyists. How did a perfectly good revolutionary like Trotsky get his name tagged to such a whiny bunch of stuck ups?

I think Marxists-Leninist would find themselves insulted if you tried to link them to your voluntarism.

[Tjis]

When people don't give me enough rep.
..
More seriously, biggest pet peeve on revleft is when people use a materialist perspective to explain the failings of their favorite socialist country, but then use a great man narrative when it comes to the successes of this country, often in the same post. ('No, country X couldn't develop socialism immediately cause it was underdeveloped and isolated and its proletariat was not well-established. Luckily, Comrade Y was there for his people, developing the country's industry to greatness and fighting off the reaction!')

[black magick hustla]

-maoist/anarchist hardtalk about violence, shooting cops, w/e which is p. hard to take seriously when considering revleft demographics

-"what do you do for the rev huh tm" which is usually dished out by boring ultra activists and sect patriots

-internet amateurs concocting their own blueprints and programs

-the rampant historical revisionism done especially by stalinists (or tankies like marcytes), who basically question the historical memory of basically millions of people as a mere conspiracy. makes you sound crazy and in line with right wing conspiracy theory revisionists.

-related to the above, is the weird manichean stalinist view of "bourgeois vs proletarian" viewpoint where basically you only believe partisan sources cuz they are "proletarian". it's a really vulgar understanding of capitalist supestructure and makes you sound like a shitty ideologue/crazy person.

-mystcism, and obscurantism

the list goes on

[Flying Purple People Eater]

People on a thread in Non-Political that make trivialisations of other members and their politics with pretentious, tacky sentences/one liners.

[Luís Henrique]

when people use such-and-such book or essay the same way christians use their bible: always siding with scripture rather than using logic and thinking for themselves.

It is even more awesome when they do that, and then you take a look at "scripture", and it doesn't say anything similar to what they believe it says.

Luís Henrique

[Questionable]

Please, please tell me this is exaggerated. I know that there are Trots that are racist, homophobic, misogynist and transphobic scum, but this has to be the most ridiculous things I have ever heard. "You must dislike white people"?

To be fair, reddit's r/socialism board is eclectic to the extreme. Most of the members there like Trotsky simply because they perceive him as being Stalin's benevolent counterpart, not because of any particular theoretical agreements.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

To be fair, reddit's r/socialism board is eclectic to the extreme. Most of the members there like Trotsky simply because they perceive him as being Stalin's benevolent counterpart, not because of any particular theoretical agreements.

Ah. I don't really frequent reddit (and in fact I had no idea what r/socialism meant; I assumed it was some sort of message board - I feel fucking old now), but I know people like that in real life. Social-democrats or worse pretending to be Trotskyists because they hate Stalin for all the wrong reasons.

Most of them eventually move toward some token humanist Marxism, though, at least in my experience; their political evolution usually coinciding with reading actual Trotskyist works.

[ind_com]

I hate liberalism among leftists. It includes:

1) Overlooking/apologizing for racism/sexism/homophobia of communist regimes using some excuse or the other.

2) Uncritically and illogically defending the actions of their heroes, be they revisionists or genuine communists.

3) Explaining their historical failure or inactivity through the lack of 'material conditions'.

4) Adopting capitalist propaganda to attack socialist countries, and then arguing that the propaganda is not wrong just because it is most frequently used by rabid capitalists.

5) Being pompous assholes instead of discussing Marxism with simple words and logic like every other science.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I agree with most of your post, however I am curious about this:


3) Explaining their historical failure or inactivity through the lack of 'material conditions'.

Failure of revolutionaries or failure of regimes? If the latter, surely we can conclude that the material conditions sometimes prevent political progress? That does not mean, of course, that actions taken in response to bad material conditions could not have been better.

[Ismail]

A good percentage of people on here don't know the definition of socialism given by Marx and argue that places like Chavez's Venezuela or Mao's China were socialist with appeals to Marxist purity and accusing their opponents of being impure Marxists.

I don't really care about the anti-revisionist theoretical purity pissing game, but this does get on my nerves.Speaking as someone who doesn't uphold either Chávez or Mao, it's probably worth pointing out that Lenin himself noted that Marxism was not a dogma. The issue isn't "how much do you blindly follow Marx," since both Kautsky and the Mensheviks denounced the Bolsheviks for supposedly betraying his teachings. Then they called for Allied intervention to crush Soviet Russia.

Revisionism means depriving Marxism-Leninism of its scientific content and its revolutionary theory and practice. Lenin and Stalin openly noted the limited nature of the observations made by Marx and Engels on a number of issues. Both men enriched Marxist thought through their efforts in creatively developing their doctrines.

Khrushchev, Brezhnev, etc. also made claims of "creatively developing" Marxism-Leninism. The difference is they didn't; they represented the new bourgeoisie which emerged in the USSR and distorted the work of Marx, Engels and Lenin (while discarding Stalin) in order to place it in the service of their social-imperialist foreign policy and state-capitalist domestic policies. Just as the Eurocommunists distorted the work of those three men to justify blatant reformism in Western Europe, the ideologists of Juche downplayed Marxism to justify Korean nationalism as the center of that country's theoretical underpinnings, etc.

If MLs wanted to engage in a "theoretical purity pissing game" based on the unchanging words of Marx then they'd just become shrill Left-Communists.

[ind_com]

I agree with most of your post, however I am curious about this:



Failure of revolutionaries or failure of regimes? If the latter, surely we can conclude that the material conditions sometimes prevent political progress? That does not mean, of course, that actions taken in response to bad material conditions could not have been better.

They can sometime prevent political progress to some extent, but they are never strong enough to stop a whole revolution. We have not been able to overthrow capitalism in a single capitalist country so far after WW2 because of our own failure to creatively implement Marxism, not the lack of some magic material conditions that were present in Russia. The same goes for the fall of the erstwhile socialist nations or the lack of armed revolutionary movements in most of the third world countries.

[Luís Henrique]

Let's see...

The "if you don't understand me, it's because you are stupid; if I don't understand you it's because you aren't making sence" attitude. Particularly from (pseudo-)Wittgensteinians.

"Oppose both", generally implying not taking any stand and consequently opposing neither.

"Stalin was the saviour of mankind", but if someone calls him on his enormous amount of bullshit, then "you are adhering to great man theories".

"State capitalism", especially the systematic refusal to see that the term is used in regards to two completely different phenomena.

People fetishising violence, especially when it is clear that they would have trouble in swapping a fly.

"Animal rights", or even worse, "animal liberation".

The "I'm more of a victim than thou" mentality.

"OK, it really achieves nothing, but it is personally exhilariating, it gives me a fuzzy warm feeling".

"Those who don't work don't eat" and related utilitarian bourgeois talk.

Genetic origins of obviously social characteristics; "evolutionary psychology".

Memetics.

A-historic "anti-theism".

People who give explanations about things they know very little about.

People who tell me what my position is, and miss it completely. Particularly if immediately after a post in which I explicitely disavow the view they attribute to me.

Luís Henrique

[Art Vandelay]

The majority of the people on these boards.

[LOLseph Stalin]

A few I can think of from the top of my head:

The tendency wars. Trotsky, Stalin, and everybody else are all dead so no point arguing about their actions. Instead we need to take theory and apply it to our own countries. I don't see how a peasant ideology like Maoism will work here in Canada, for example. We're an industrialized country so Mao's actions are pretty irrelevant in Canadian context.

Also, it annoys me when somebody gives a long essay length response to a noob's question with information about stuff they may not even understand yet. They're just learning so slow down! I personally try to give them short simple responses so they have something to start with before expanding.

Lastly, the complete lack of females on this site. I know of me and like two others :rolleyes:.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

The majority of the people on these boards.

Yea we're kinda dicks...

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

The "I'm more of a victim than thou" mentality.



I concur with this and raise you the "prolier-than-thou" mentality.

My biggest pet peeve by far is left- wing utilitarianism masking as socialism/communism. Fuck that shit nonstop.

[homegrown terror]

Lastly, the complete lack of females on this site. I know of me and like two others :rolleyes:.

i suspect there are more than that, many might just not draw attention to their gender because they worry that, even in a purpose-formed egalitarian forum, they might be taken more seriously if seen as male or at least agender.

[Let's Get Free]

When people throw around the word "liberal" and derail serious discussion.

[JPSartre12]

The tendency wars.

Yes, as well as the purist intolerance that some of us on the Left have to those who are more centre-left (social democrats, social-liberals, etc). If we were a bit nicer and more willing to talk to them, I think that they'd prove to be a relatively fertile recruiting ground. I've converted two of my "liberal" friends into socialists by giving them a couple of books to read.

[Fourth Internationalist]

When people throw around the word "liberal" and derail serious discussion.

Yeah. When I hear communists calling each other liberals as an Iinsult, it looks as pathetic as conservatives calling each other or democrats socialists.

[bcbm]

people who type in all lowercase letters and dont use proper punctuation
trolls
people who complain

[LOLseph Stalin]

Yes, as well as the purist intolerance that some of us on the Left have to those who are more centre-left (social democrats, social-liberals, etc). If we were a bit nicer and more willing to talk to them, I think that they'd prove to be a relatively fertile recruiting ground. I've converted two of my "liberal" friends into socialists by giving them a couple of books to read.

Agreed. Some liberals are impossible to convert though such as some guy I know on facebook who is pretty much convinced Lenin was one of the most evil people on the planet(He doesn't like anarcho-communism either). However, I have managed to convert one person who used to be a social democrat.

[Drosophila]

-"We have to take action NOW" people
-"socialist consciousness" talk
-treatment Marx/Engels' word as gospel
-people who say "bourgeois history" in response to critiques of historical events, etc.
-people who are "materialist" to the point where nothing can be predicted or explained
-people with generic 19th-20th century leftists in their avatars
-thanking every post in existence
-people who join every group in existence
-groups dedicated to stupid shit
-clogging up visitor message boards

[Fourth Internationalist]

Communists that don't accept historical facts because the leaders they admire were just as bad as the Nazis but with a hammer and sickle instead of a swatstika.

[#FF0000]

Communists that don't accept historical facts because the leaders they admire were just as bad as the Nazis but with a hammer and sickle instead of a swatstika.

i'm not a fan of stalin or anything but this is pretty dumb, dogg.


-thanking every post in existence

sorry

[Orange Juche]

1) A disproportionately high amount of arguments made in debates are strawman arguments.

2) When people make comments about hanging/maiming/killing in some other way people they disagree with (sometimes denoted, "after the revolution")

3) It's gone way overboard what gets you put into OI, and not allowing religious groups (even though there's a history of religious left movements, for example, the Catholic Worker Movement - an anarchist organization). Basically, over-modding.

And that's it, I think.

[Orange Juche]

Also, it annoys me when somebody gives a long essay length response to a noob's question with information about stuff they may not even understand yet. They're just learning so slow down! I personally try to give them short simple responses so they have something to start with before expanding.

I've noticed that... it's like a kid asking why planets go around the sun and giving them long physics equations related to mass and gravity.

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

Posters who have absolutely no regard for theory, philosophy, or psychology, not to mention those who believe that the term "false consciousness" explains everything by itself.

[Art Vandelay]

Yeah. When I hear communists calling each other liberals as an Iinsult, it looks as pathetic as conservatives calling each other or democrats socialists.

This. As in people who don't understand the term liberal and think its some sort of shit slinging slur as opposed to an actual representation of said persons politics.

[Prometeo liberado]

Biggest peeve is not reading anymore of Ismail's epic posts that result in even more epic threads. Who was it that devoted an entire thread to doing battle with my man Ismail? Where have those days gone?:(

Edit: Rafiq!!! That Ismail's all time nemises!

[Red Commissar]

Mine is more of a general forum gripe. I don't like it when people double (or even triple) post in a span of a few minutes when an edit could've worked fine.

[Fourth Internationalist]

i'm not a fan of stalin or anything but this is pretty dumb, dogg.

How?

[ellipsis]

I pretty well cant stand the lot of ya.

[Raúl Duke]

I have a lot of pet peeves.

Most of which I don't tend to remember specifically until that pet peeve comes up than I remember how much I hate it with a burning passion.

As far as for revleft...

One peeve that I've seen is how some members seem to act as if quoting something is a debate argument in itself, which it isn't at all.

Despite considering myself an anarchist (although perhaps I'm more like a left-com or some other, to some people; maybe they're right. whatever), I actually get a bit annoyed when the newer anarchist members make strawman arguments and troll arguments towards Leninists (Perhaps it's because they derail already shaky threads, as all tendency threads are shaky, that could be promising if people talked intelligently on the matter). There's much to disagree on with them, but for fuck sake don't bring up stupid and/or irrelevant shit. Then again, same goes for the newer or dumber/tankie Leninists who have nothing interesting to say in those threads other than "anarchism is stupid or whatever."

Also, what Tjis and BMH mentioned. Plus, like 9mm, I dislike most people on the board actually and think a great many of you are somewhat cray cray.

There's probably more, but like I said, I tend not to remember them explicitly.
Plus probably mentioned other peeves in other similar threads, like in the "most unpopular viewpoint on the left" I mentioned how I find revolutionary asceticism distasteful.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

How?

A couple things.

Stalin's assassination were aimed at those in power, now while some might argue that these were genuine communists (I am not making or opposing that point right now) who did not deserve their fate, to be a communist revolutionary puts you in a separate moral category than an innocent civilian. An innocent civilian, in an absolute sense, has never done anything to put himself in front of a firing squad while a Communist on the other hand can expect nothing but the firing squad. A Communist is a revolutionary devoted to overthrowing the present order, if the capitalist state kills a communist, it is not morally outrageous for the state to do so because that is simply the capitalist state being a capitalist state and carrying out the basic functions of self maintenance, however when a capitalist state kills some one that has no intention of threatening it then it is morally outrageous because the capitalist state has no apparent reason for doing so. So if a police officer killed a black person tommorow that would be outrageous because that person did nothing to deserve it! If the capitalist state were to torture and kill everyone who visits this site, well what on earth do you expect from a capitalist state? That's just how it operates! That is like being angry at the sun for setting! Of course then the point is to abolish it so such things are not "natural" occurances....

So while you can point to it and say that it was a capitalist state behaving as such and therefore proves that the USSR was not proletarian, everyone who is communist should know that when the revolution comes the CIA probably knows who you are and will drone strike your house, kill your family, and "disappear" your friends. This is not an evil thing, it is quite normal and expected under the present arrangement of things. Of course we do not like the present arrangement of things, we wish to abolish it. But to say that this is evil is to imply that it is more evil than what usually occurs under capitalism, and as I have said before, it is not in anyway unusual for capitalism to act this way.

Now, other than the killing of Communists in the Great Purge, most famine deaths came from the Soviet Union's attempt at industrialization. Sure, people did die, but this was a splendid period where the economy grew about 5% annually and the Soviet Union rose from a third world country to a world superpower, while in the united states there was a demographic loss of 7 million people while the government deliberately destroyed food to increase food price and the American economy was crashing. So if i were to say who was a better person, Stalin or Roosevelt, I would definitely say Stalin. And I would expect even the most ardent Anti-Stalinist to agree with me on that. However, they would simply say that economic growth can also be achieved in capitalist states so while they might acknowledge these achievements they would not support the Soviet Union because of the class nature of the state, not because Stalin was "evil".

And lastly, please don't compare anything to fascism. The only reason why we hear about the holocaust all the time is because it happened to white people. American slavery killed 150 Million blacks, and Native American removal killed 10 million people, and don't even get me started on imperialism. Heck, Hitler didn't even invent the concentration camp, it was the British and they used them to detain Irishmen in the 80's So I say that Hitler was not that bad of a fellow when compared to the Queen of England and all other imperialists eh? Because fascism has never existed. Fascism is only imperialism when white people are on the receiving end, and does not deserve to be upheld as the ultimate evil or as something more than imperialism being turned against the colonizer. An "inter-imperialist" war machine that has taken the whole "inter-imperialist" thing far too literally for the liking of the other imperialists.

[#FF0000]

What annoys me sometimes is that a lot of discussions end up between two sides that are laughably wrong.

oh hey woah what a coinky-dink

[ellipsis]

Nobody posts in threads that I want them to.

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

When people give answers / give a perspective with absolutely zero humility. Just complete certainty to the point of being arrogant and obnoxious (usually accompanied with an insult).

[AConfusedSocialDemocrat]

The callous indifference to human life sometimes displayed here.

[AConfusedSocialDemocrat]

The only reason why we hear about the holocaust all the time is because it happened to white people.

I think the reason why people go on about the holocaust is because it was a deliberate, intentional, industrial and methodical attempt at wiping a certain ethnic group off the face of the planet, not because they were white.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Revelft has a chitchat/non-political thread system similar to cracked.com's article system.

[#FF0000]

I think the reason why people go on about the holocaust is because it was a deliberate, intentional, industrial and methodical attempt at wiping a certain ethnic group off the face of the planet, not because they were white.

The "industrial" bit is the only thing that's different from any other genocide ever.

Of course that's kind of a significant thing.

[xvzc]

Simplistic cut and dry answers and solutions to every problem, usually confined in one-liners. The world is much more complex than the RevLeft user base likes to admit, I think.

[CyM]

Well, material conditions really are responsible for the degeneration of the soviet union and the rise of a bonapartist clique in the transitional economy.

But there is someone to blame, if you really want to look for that, revolutionaries in other countries who did not begin building bolshevik parties until far too late. When their revolutions broke out, they were caught unprepared and either could not lead or, had members who were too fresh and inexperienced and fucked it up tragically.

Even Rosa.

Had there been a professional party trained for more than a decade in Germany, all of human history would have been changed.

[hatzel]

To be honest I probably shouldn't get so worked up about the fact that quite a lot of the threads in discrimination and even some elsewhere seem to consist of little else but the OP copy-pasting a news article about some obviously shitty thing that's happened followed by two pages of indignant people trying to think of imaginative ways to say that they think the thing that's happened is shitty (as if it didn't go without saying), ranging from the rather mundane 'this is really horrible!' to the somewhat more flowery 'man I wish I could cut this guy's balls off and shove them in his butt and then cut his butt open to pull the balls out and throw them in a canal because that's what he deserves for doing this!!!' or something...but alas, it really gets to me for some reason...

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

I think the reason why people go on about the holocaust is because it was a deliberate, intentional, industrial and methodical attempt at wiping a certain ethnic group off the face of the planet, not because they were white.

Unlike any other manifestation of imperialism?

[Rurkel]

Well, many manifestations of imperialism sought to exploit other ethnic groups, and exploitation is, in a certain sense, an opposite goal to "wiping off the face of the planet". You don't value the lives of the exploited much, but you understand that them being wiped off also means that you won't have anyone to exploit.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Pro bono internet psychiatrists that diagnose you with any number of psychiatric conditions (they do not understand), or simply insinuate that you're a right bastard whenever you dare express disdain for bourgeois moralising.

[Aurora]

It really annoys me when a thread in Learning is derailed over some insignificant detail or someone is disrespectful to the OP or the only answers are a bunch of one-liners none of which is useful in the slightest or it falls between the cracks.

Threads about drugs that get more responses than threads about much more important stuff, responses in drug threads that sound like they're written by a libertarian.

People who give a shit what MRN does.

That Discrimination is packed full of bourgeois responses like harsher penalties or firing workers and only ever focuses on formal rights rather than real equality, there's no linking of womens struggle to the struggle for communism.

[GerrardWinstanley]

I can't think of anything bad about this place that I didn't already expect before I joined. Plus it's considerably more laid back than some left-wing blogs I've used/commented on (Lenin's Tomb is so catty, I've often asked myself 'why would I want to take part in a revolution with such vain arseholes?'). Certainly for an internet forum, it's a pretty normal, well-adjusted crowd and I promise I'm not just being obsequious.

There's a lot of awkward, longwinded verbiage that you come to expect from Marxists, but I'm as guilty of that as the next person. Occasionally, some of the language on here is a bit extreme (e.g. I noticed somebody tastelessly wishing cancer on the Pope emeritus - I don't care how evil Mr. Ratzinger is, people demean themselves by saying things like this, even when the sentiment is right) and serves as a reminder to me of the importance of groundedness and self-control if there is any hope of winning enough hearts and minds in the popular classes to end capitalism.

[Althusser]

When people on here try to sound hard and shit, and fetishize violence the same way that pacifists fetishize non-violence. :rolleyes:

I can't help it!

Crazy with fury I will stain my rifle red while slaughtering any enemy that falls in my hands! My nostrils dilate while savoring the acrid odor of gunpowder and blood. With the deaths of my enemies I prepare my being for the sacred fight and join the triumphant proletariat with a bestial howl! -Che Guevara

This shit is sexually arousing!

[Leftsolidarity]

When people have the post they're quoting underneath their writing.

[ellipsis]

when i check my CP after not logging in for a day, and there is nothing to see, no matter how many times i reload the page.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Threads where we all do maoist self-criticism. Like this one.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

The sexist baggage that some male comrades carry with them.

[Quail]

When people have the post they're quoting underneath their writing.
Yes, and in this vein, when people fuck up quote tags. It's tempting to edit the post and fix them, but that would probably be an abuse of my mod powers haha.

[#FF0000]

Threads where we all do maoist self-criticism. Like this one.

we should have another non-political board for this kind of thread.

For a name, I nominate "THE FLAGELLANTS PIT"

edit: To keep on topic, threads about sexism really disappoint me around here because I think they end up bringing a lot of fire but no illumination cause everyone's dumb.

also everyone's dumb so i hate revleft lallalallalalalala

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

we should have another non-political board for this kind of thread.

For a name, I nominate "THE FLAGELLANTS PIT"

"Struggle and Submission Sessions".


edit: To keep on topic, threads about sexism really disappoint me around here because I think they end up bringing a lot of fire but no illumination cause everyone's dumb.

also everyone's dumb so i hate revleft lallalallalalalala

I plead guilty to the charge of being dumb, but it really isn't the case that all sides are equal - I mean, we have honest, committed comrades that try to explain why certain actions or positions are sexist, people like Danielle ni Dighe, Jimmy Higgins, Quail, and others, and the opposite side seems to be filled to the brim with liberals, moralists and generally sexists.

[#FF0000]

I plead guilty to the charge of being dumb, but it really isn't the case that all sides are equal - I mean, we have honest, committed comrades that try to explain why certain actions or positions are sexist, people like Danielle ni Dighe, Jimmy Higgins, Quail, and others, and the opposite side seems to be filled to the brim with liberals, moralists and generally sexists.

Aside from the "opposite side" being wrong (because I am never in the "opposite side") I think that we do a really bad job of explaining why "women's liberation" or whatever is integral to anti-capitalism.

I'm bad at it because I'm stupid and honestly do not know much about this stuff (which is why I don't claim to be a feminist in any serious way). I don't know the nitty-gritty details of patriarchy or these other issues and p. much just argue from the perspective that we should do our best to be inclusive for workers no matter who they are. v:mellow:v

[Quail]

I try to do my best to give logical, reasoned responses and explain why I think certain things contribute towards a sexist society, and also why it's important to fight discrimination alongside capitalism, but a lot of it seems to fall on deaf ears which is quite disheartening.

Edit: I do think that we need to propose more solutions to things though. I know that I am guilty of criticising things without giving any constructive way to make them better, especially when I don't have a lot of time to be posting walls of text on internet forums.

[Aurora]

I think my general feeling is that most of the analysis is superficial or shallow, i don't blame anyone for this but myself because i don't know enough to provide better answers.

I'd really like to see a thread which discusses the origins of the family in connection with the development of the productive forces, the expansion of the division of labour and with this the development of women's slavery. How this subjugation of women has changed through different modes of production and the changing role of women throughout the development of capitalist society, with this how the communist's should orientate towards women the setting up of women's departments etc, the measures necessary to begin the changes in the family and culture to bring about women's liberation etc.

I read this piece by the Communist International yesterday and it stands in stark contrast to what i'd typically read in Discrimination.

http://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/3rd-congress/women-theses.htm

3 While making the improvement of Party work amongst the female proletariat an immediate task of both the Western and Eastern Communist Parties, the III Congress of the Communist International at the same time points out to the working women of the whole world that their liberation from centuries of enslavement, lack of rights and inequality is possible only through the victory of Communism, and that the bourgeois women’s movement is completely incapable of guaranteeing women that which Communism gives. So long as the power of capital and private property exists, the liberation of woman from dependence on a husband can go no further than the right to dispose of her own property and her own wage and decide on equal terms with her husband the future of her children.

The most radical feminist demand – the extension of the suffrage to women in the framework of bourgeois parliamentarianism – does not solve the question of real equality for women, especially those of the propertyless classes. The experience of working women in all those capitalist countries in which, over recent years, the bourgeoisie has introduced formal equality of the sexes makes this clear. The vote does not destroy the prime cause of women’s enslavement in the family and society. Some bourgeois states have substituted civil marriage for indissoluble marriage. But as long as the proletarian woman remains economically dependent upon the capitalist boss and her husband, the breadwinner, and in the absence of comprehensive measures to protect motherhood and childhood and provide socialised child-care and education, this cannot equalise the position of women in marriage or solve the problem of relationships between the sexes.

The real equality of women, as opposed to formal and superficial equality, will be achieved only under Communism, when women and all the other members of the labouring class will become co-owners of the means of production and distribution and will take part in administering them, and women will share on an equal footing with all the members of the labour society the duty to work; in other words, it will be achieved by overthrowing the capitalist system of production and exploitation which is based on the exploitation of human labour,and by organising a Communist economy.

Only Communism creates conditions whereby the conflict between the natural function of woman – maternity – and her social obligations, which hinder her creative work for the collective, will disappear and the harmonious and many-sided development of a healthy and balanced personality firmly and closely in tune with the life and goals of the labour-collective will be completed. All women who fight for the emancipation of woman and the recognition of her rights must have as their aim the creation of a Communist society.

But Communism is also the final aim of the proletariat as a whole and therefore, in the interests of both sides, the two struggles must be fought as ‘a single and indivisible’ struggle.

[ellipsis]

This is stupid, but because there are so many, but not enough non Americans, I really having to type of long form versions of place names, like San Francisco Bay Area instead of Bay Area or SF.


Yes, and in this vein, when people fuck up quote tags. It's tempting to edit the post and fix them, but that would probably be an abuse of my mod powers haha.

I would do that back when I was a mod, or add/fix YouTube tags. As long as your not editing content I think that's within your purview.

[The Douche]

I'm bad at it because I'm stupid and honestly do not know much about this stuff (which is why I don't claim to be a feminist in any serious way). I don't know the nitty-gritty details of patriarchy or these other issues and p. much just argue from the perspective that we should do our best to be inclusive for workers no matter who they are. v:mellow:v

Something something base something patriarchy something superstructure, I dunno...


http://www.picvalley.net/u/1878/11713672756669331721364674816T86t3GoggWaE25ViwnnG. JPG

[Althusser]

Something something base something patriarchy something superstructure, I dunno...


http://www.picvalley.net/u/1878/11713672756669331721364674816T86t3GoggWaE25ViwnnG. JPG

I've been to a few discussions about proletarian feminism (and I adhere to it fully)

But this made me lol hard

[Ele'ill]

the anti animal liberation people whose entire argument is an attack against positions that don't actually exist in anyone's minds anywhere in the entire world

[The Douche]

I've been to a few discussions about proletarian feminism (and I adhere to it fully)

But this made me lol hard

I don't mean it in a way that would run counter to feminism. I quite agree with #FFwhateverzeros that I don't really have the background and the knowledge to speak on feminism, but I do know that communism requires a particular struggle around the issue of defeating patriarchy, and I dig that, so feminism does mean "full communism", I just don't know in what specific ways feminism contributes to that.

That said, this (http://libcom.org/library/lies-journal-marxist-feminism) is on my coffee table right now and I do intend to read it soon.

[MarxArchist]

Haven't been here long enough to lob around a bunch of complaints but the only contention I've had thus far has been surrounding feminism and some peoples hero complexes to defend anything and everything with the title 'feminism' attached to it. The holy grail of uncriticizable theory? Think if Marxism in general suffered from the same phenomenon. We'd all be praising North Korea as the ultimate workers state. I'm talking constructive critisizm here not advocating an anti-feminist position or "men's rights activist" nonsense.

[The Douche]

Haven't been here long enough to lob around a bunch of complaints but the only contention I've had thus far has been surrounding feminism and some peoples hero complexes to defend anything and everything with the title 'feminism' attached to it. The holy grail of uncriticizable theory? Think if Marxism in general suffered from the same phenomenon. We'd all be praising North Korea as the ultimate workers state. I'm talking constructive critisizm here not advocating an anti-feminist position or "men's rights activist" nonsense.

I mean, I'm just coming back after taking some time off, but I think people here are definitely a-ok with critiques of bourgeois feminism, that is, once they realise its bourgeois feminism that you're going after, and not "feminism".

[Prometeo liberado]

Dolphins always trying to escape from their natural habitat and peple calling that communism. Must be a Revleft thing.
http://www.picvalley.net/u/1878/11713672756669331721364674816T86t3GoggWaE25ViwnnG. JPG

[MarxArchist]

I mean, I'm just coming back after taking some time off, but I think people here are definitely a-ok with critiques of bourgeois feminism, that is, once they realise its bourgeois feminism that you're going after, and not "feminism".
It's not just this forum. I was new here in this thread: http://www.revleft.com/vb/antisexuality-t178962/index2.html and knew it would happen (circling the wagon) because of my experience over the last 15 years or so. RadFem theory/practice is usually what I criticize, which doesn't happen often, but seeing many of the early theorists had roots in Marxism and Anarchism calling them bourgeois is a tad disingenuous ; I would say they split with materialism into the realm of idealism. I just criticized a feminist in the donglegate thread, not sure if she's a RadFem but definitely seems bourgeois. I don't limit my criticisms to feminism by any means and they're not abundant I criticize Marxist theory as well (and much more). We all know the outcome of that between the various sects. I'm often criticize the New Left and privilege theory which in many cases in the past, within the community here in Oakland, has opened up the door for people to call me racist. I'll guarantee there's at least two or three people reading my post now that have just decided I'm a racist and misogynist for what I just typed. I think the next thread I make will concern the New Left and privilege theory. Are there any already?

[The Douche]

It's not just this forum. I was new here in this thread: http://www.revleft.com/vb/antisexuality-t178962/index2.html and knew it would happen (circling the wagon) because of my experience over the last 15 years or so. RadFem theory/practice is usually what I criticize, which doesn't happen often, but seeing many of the early theorists had roots in Marxism and Anarchism calling them bourgeois is a tad disingenuous ; I would say they split with materialism into the realm of idealism. I just criticized a feminist in the donglegate thread, not sure if she's a RadFem but definitely seems bourgeois. I don't limit my criticisms to feminism by any means and they're not abundant I criticize Marxist theory as well (and much more). We all know the outcome of that between the various sects. I'm often criticize the New Left and privilege theory which in many cases in the past, within the community here in Oakland, has opened up the door for people to call me racist. I'll guarantee there's at least two or three people reading my post now that have just decided I'm a racist and misogynist for what I just typed. I think the next thread I make will concern the New Left and privilege theory. Are there any already?

I don't think you'll find much in the way of privilege theory and identity politicos here. Not because everybody is cooler than that, but because most of the membership are young males.

Certainly there will be some though.

[Luís Henrique]

I mean, I'm just coming back after taking some time off, but I think people here are definitely a-ok with critiques of bourgeois feminism, that is, once they realise its bourgeois feminism that you're going after, and not "feminism".

There are brands of bourgeois, even reactionary, "feminism" that are not usually recognised as bourgeois and reactionary by many members of the board. Which, yes, is another pet peeve of mine.

Luís Henrique

[The Feral Underclass]

3) Explaining their historical failure or inactivity through the lack of 'material conditions'.

This.

[Sam_b]

Half of the board's users.

[Art Vandelay]

Half of the board's users.

You're much more lenient on the membership then I thought you would be and then I am.

[Leftsolidarity]

How it feels that at least 10% of new posters come to the board thinking they know everything already and are here to inform us instead of learn themselves. I can't say that I wasn't kind of like this when I first came but it's really annoying when people don't break out of that.

[Geiseric]

When people go on and on about material conditions being the only reason that such and such a thing happened because you know someone else couldn't have made a better choice and have dealt with the material conditions in a different way possibly leading to a different outcome. The politically correct bullshit pisses me off to no fucking end at all! Oh their poor virgin ears to hear such gritty words :rolleyes:

Also i am starting to understand why Marxist-Leninists dislike Trotskyists. How did a perfectly good revolutionary like Trotsky get his name tagged to such a whiny bunch of stuck ups?

such as whom? I usually try to at least explain arguments.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

I just hate it when I acuse all socialists of being authoritarians. It leads to nothing more than discussion and no learning.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

Who the hell does that!?


When people have the post they're quoting underneath their writing.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Please, please tell me this is exaggerated. I know that there are Trots that are racist, homophobic, misogynist and transphobic scum, but this has to be the most ridiculous things I have ever heard. "You must dislike white people"?
.
This actually isn't an exaggeration. I made a post on my blog about racist trends in the Socialist Equality Party and posted it on reddit, and this was one of the replies

Here is the blog post

http://aroundthepear.blogspot.com/2013/03/concerning-trends-in-socialist-equality.html

Here is one person trying to rationalize the racism in the SEP line.


A person will never die solely because they were female or because they were black

There were some that sounded worse, some that were phrased more poliety, but basically everyone who defended the SEP rephrased that quote in one way or another. It was probably one of the most disturbing things I've ever read, I didn't even bother replying because the level of cognitive dissonance that they used to justify the SEP's racism, and the amount of internalized racism that was demonstrated from people who actively support the SEP
s line was outstanding. So in all honesty, I think that they should be considered a left-wing fascist movement, or at least they are as racist as the Tea Party except maybe they are a bit more polite about it.

Oh yes, and also I just want to take a moment to give Trotskyism some credit. The Socialist Equality Party is a big movement and I'm sure there is a temptation to join it due to it's size and influnce, so I have to applaud Trotskyists who have maintained a privileged line and steered clear of that wretched organization.

[soso17]

Its = belonging to it (possessive)
It's = it is

Lose = to misplace or have taken away
Loose = not tight; free

Who = subject
Whom = object

Whose = belonging to whom
Who's = who is

A lot is two words

Then = at that time
Than = used in comparison (as in "prolier than thou")

I feel so much better now ;)

[DarkPast]

I really hate it when people casually toss around ableist slurs such as "cretin", "psycho" or "imbecile".

But people who actually do have mental illnesses usually let it go because everyday life is already so hard for them that they simply don't have the stamina to argue with every inconsiderate person on the internet. Furthermore, general awareness of the shit such people have to face is pretty low (which is also partly due to the factor mentioned above).

[Drosophila]

When moderators only moderate things that they disagree with.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

When users try to justify trolling with ideological excuses and whine when other people call them out on it.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

The awful color scheme which is clearly a tribute to soviet aesthetics

[Astarte]

My biggest "revleft pet peeve" are n00b Marxists who think they know everything after 9 to 18 months of being a leftist while alleging meticulous combings over of the sacred texts while their generalization and naivety of theory is glaring...

[#FF0000]

Haven't been here long enough to lob around a bunch of complaints but the only contention I've had thus far has been surrounding feminism and some peoples hero complexes to defend anything and everything with the title 'feminism' attached to it. The holy grail of uncriticizable theory? Think if Marxism in general suffered from the same phenomenon. We'd all be praising North Korea as the ultimate workers state. I'm talking constructive critisizm here not advocating an anti-feminist position or "men's rights activist" nonsense.

maybe people just think you're wrong

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Cis men trolling the Women's Struggles forum.

[#FF0000]

reminds me

people calling all things "trolling".

that's not just a revleft thing tho

[Vanguard1917]

There are brands of bourgeois, even reactionary, "feminism" that are not usually recognised as bourgeois and reactionary by many members of the board. Which, yes, is another pet peeve of mine.

True. As with one or two other isms

[Ismail]

My biggest "revleft pet peeve" are n00b Marxists who think they know everything after 9 to 18 months of being a leftist while alleging meticulous combings over of the sacred texts while their generalization and naivety of theory is glaring...Eclecticism is a big problem on RevLeft. There has been, throughout its history, Anarcho-Technocrats, Anarcho-DeLeonists, DNZists/"Kautskyists/"Orthodox Marxists," etc.

The problem is that it's all too often a cover for one's own shallow knowledge. Case in point the premier Anarcho-Technocrat, Dimentio, once said that the labor theory of value made no sense since if he dug dirt out of a ground it wouldn't have value. Also DNZ once told me he always avoids reading books offline and can "summarize" a book's content via Google Books.

Prairie Fire in 2007:

Every Commie noob thinks that they’re the new Lenin.

Every red, whose 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.

I too, in the beginning, thought that I had a pretty good handle on things. Among my experienced comrades, I thought that I should be the one calling the shots. Rather than embracing the decades of experience of my organization, I questioned every action and every policy, spouting long tirades of social-democratic, Utopian socialist rubbish...

I even wrote a short book , pompously titled the “Manifesto of the 21st Century proletariat”. In this tome, I laid down my own naive thoughts on every element of a hypothetical socialist society, my capitalist influenced criticisms of of various past communist personalities, my Utopian socialist revisionism, and other useless bile that I thought was both insightful and practical. Now, since I have re-read it, I find myself grimacing with disgust that the words coming off of the page are my own...

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.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The problem is that it's all too often a cover for one's own shallow knowledge. Case in point the premier Anarcho-Technocrat, Dimentio, once said that the labor theory of value made no sense since if he dug dirt out of a ground it wouldn't have value.

Depends what is done with it, surely...

[ellipsis]

Getting infractions when I don't even try to troll...

[Drosophila]

Eclecticism is a big problem on RevLeft. There has been, throughout its history, Anarcho-Technocrats, Anarcho-DeLeonists, DNZists/"Kautskyists/"Orthodox Marxists," etc.

Do you not accept the Merger Formula, comrade? :laugh:

[Ele'ill]

Getting infractions when I don't even try to troll...

Infraction for trolling.

[Astarte]

Eclecticism is a big problem on RevLeft. There has been, throughout its history, Anarcho-Technocrats, Anarcho-DeLeonists, DNZists/"Kautskyists/"Orthodox Marxists," etc.

The problem is that it's all too often a cover for one's own shallow knowledge. Case in point the premier Anarcho-Technocrat, Dimentio, once said that the labor theory of value made no sense since if he dug dirt out of a ground it wouldn't have value. Also DNZ once told me he always avoids reading books offline and can "summarize" a book's content via Google Books.


I don't think eclecticism is such a bad thing - although you are correct that it can often be a cover for shallow ideas. I wouldn't consider a prolific lack of various orthodox beliefs to be a mainstream current on revleft - rather there are a myriad of tendencies each with their own orthodoxies competing for ideological hegemony - this (a kind of 'collective-eclecticism') is not so bad though to have on a leftist forum because historically speaking, what but eclecticism in conjunct with the forging fires of historical conditions, realities and events synthesize new ideas, ways forward and programmes? Marxism itself is based in the eclecticism of German Philosophy, English Political Economy and French Socialism - of course "the eclecticism of Marxism" took years to coagulate into a cohesive system of thought - any type of eclecticism which could provide a way forward, I would also assume, would take several years, if not decades to properly ripen and bear edible fruit.

[SuchianFrog735]

Pet Peeves: The way it seems people seem to cling to lesser evilism is thrown around, i.e. I'd rather live in this regime because it's anti-capitalist, etc.

For that matter, how a broad brush is swept on capitalist tendencies, rather than analyzing the actual conditions. Obviously you don't do this with communist regimes, so why just not examine it more closely?

What I mean is, Capitalism is not something we just instinctively become repulsed with, but it's more a stage that is gradually getting overcome.

[Luís Henrique]

Nobody does such a thing, obviously. It is just another conspiracy theory.


Who the hell does that!?

Luís Henrique

[Ele'ill]

"can't stand seeing someone in pain but every other animal that feels physical pain and emotional distress, nah, give no fucks, just anthropomorphism brainwashing from specifically PETA"

[Luís Henrique]

True. As with one or two other isms

One of them is clearly atheism.

Luís Henrique

[melvin]

People taking a much more hardline stance against homophobia and sexism than racism is something I have noticed occasionally here. It is really aggravating.

[l'Enfermé]

Eclecticism is a big problem on RevLeft. There has been, throughout its history, Anarcho-Technocrats, Anarcho-DeLeonists, DNZists/"Kautskyists/"Orthodox Marxists," etc.


You will have to explain to me what is eclectic about "Kautskyism" or Orthodox Marxism? The influences are pretty much exclusively Marx/Engels and their direct first(Kautsky, Plekhanov, Bebel, Liebknecht, etc.) and second generation(Lenin, etc) disciples.

[melvin]

Eclecticism is a big problem on RevLeft. There has been, throughout its history, Anarcho-Technocrats, Anarcho-DeLeonists, DNZists/"Kautskyists/"Orthodox Marxists," etc.Your tendency is "Enver Hoxha" which to me definitely fits into what you are complaining about.

[Ismail]

Your tendency is "Enver Hoxha" which to me definitely fits into what you are complaining about.Considering that major parties in Brazil, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Benin, the Ivory Coast, Canada, etc. (along with the KPD/ML that had a presence in both West and East Germany) upheld the Albanian line in the 70's-80's (and some still do to varying extents) that's a bit hard to imagine.

João Amazonas, Hardial Bains, Ernst Aust (described in one Trot rag as "an old experienced Stalinist") and even Meles Zenawi were hardly internet revolutionaries.

A pro-Albanian group participated in the Burkinabé government under Thomas Sankara while a pro-Albanian journalist was one of the foremost opponents of the military regime in Suriname. In Afghanistan there were a few small pro-Albanian groups in militant opposition to the Soviet occupiers.

I don't see how you can compare that with a guy on RevLeft making up words and trying to position himself as a genius theoretician based on the newbie status of his followers. Hoxha was a communist since the 30's, having been influenced by the PCF which was infamous for its "Stalinist orthodoxy." He built a communist party in isolated conditions, led it to victory and exposed all the nationalist and right-wing deviations from Marxism-Leninism whether they originated in Moscow, Beijing, Havana, Pyongyang, Belgrade or elsewhere. As Aust pointed out at the 7th Congress of the Party of Labour of Albania in 1976, "Albania is not only the great beacon light of socialism for Europe, but for all the world." (quoted in Peter R. Prifti, Socialist Albania since 1944, 1978, p. 252.) It was a beacon not because of some sort of "higher stage of Marxism-Leninism" or other theoretical "innovations," which the Albanians never claimed for themselves, but because of its resolute adherence to the line of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin. That is what characterized the pro-Albanian tendency.

[Rafiq]

presuming ismails conception of ecclecticism, the greatest eclectic was marx himself, absorbing and dismissing very specific concepts and theories from an inumerable amount of figures. eclecticism is the disorganisation of ideas, they contradict, overlap, etc. It doesn't signify heterogeneious frameworks.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Captain Ahab]

When members do bizarre tendency shifts like from Hoxhaism to anarchism or the reverse.
When anarchists equate Leninism with fascism or Leninists equate anarchism with liberalism.
Anti-imperialism that is thinly veiled anti-Americanism.
Kronstadt apologia.

[melvin]

Considering that major parties in Brazil, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Benin, the Ivory Coast, Canada, etc. (along with the KPD/ML that had a presence in both West and East Germany) upheld the Albanian line in the 70's-80's (and some still do to varying extents) that's a bit hard to imagine.Alright, it's less out there than anarcho-technocrat or whatever. That doesn't mean that it's any less needless to replace "Marxist-Leninism" with "Hoxhaism" considering that the former actually makes sense to people whereas the latter doesn't.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

People that are too "left" to fight for meaningful progress that affects the workers. "National oppression? Murderous homophobia? Crushing misogyny? Pah! Wait for the revolution!"

[Lucretia]

The incomprehension and misrepresentation by anarchists and left-coms of Lenin's quote: "For socialism is merely the next step forward from state-capitalist monopoly. Or, in other words, socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people and has to that extent ceased to be capitalist monopoly."

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

The incomprehension and misrepresentation by anarchists and left-coms of Lenin's quote: "For socialism is merely the next step forward from state-capitalist monopoly. Or, in other words, socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people and has to that extent ceased to be capitalist monopoly."

Indeed, in these quotes Lenin was merely speaking about how multiple modes of production can co exist and intermingle. To quote Lenin fully:


It has not occurred to them that state capitalism would be a step forward as compared with the present state of affairs in our Soviet Republic. If in approximately six months’ time state capitalism became established in our Republic, this would be a great success and a sure guarantee that within a year socialism will have gained a permanently firm hold and will have become invincible in our country.

I can imagine with what noble indignation a “Left Communist” will recoil from these words, and what “devastating criticism” he will make to the workers against the “Bolshevik deviation to the right”. What! Transition to state capitalism in the Soviet Socialist Republic would be a step forward?. . . Isn’t this the betrayal of socialism?

Here we come to the root of the economic mistake of the “Left Communists”. And that is why we must deal with this point in greater detail.

Firstly, the “Left Communists” do not understand what kind of transition it is from capitalism to socialism that gives us the right and the grounds to call our country the Socialist Republic of Soviets.

Secondly, they reveal their petty-bourgeois mentality precisely by not recognising the petty-bourgeois element as the principal enemy of socialism in our country.

Thirdly, in making a bugbear of “state capitalism”, they betray their failure to understand that the Soviet state differs from the bourgeois state economically.

Let us examine these three points.

No one, I think, in studying the question of the economic system of Russia, has denied its transitional character. Nor, I think, has any Communist denied that the term Socialist Soviet Republic implies the determination of Soviet power to achieve the transition to socialism, and not that the new economic system is recognised as a socialist order.

But what does the word “transition” mean? Does it not mean, as applied to an economy, that the present system contains elements, particles, fragments of both capitalism and socialism? Everyone will admit that it does. But not all who admit this take the trouble to consider what elements actually constitute the various socio-economic structures that exist in Russia at the present time. And this is the crux of the question.

Let us enumerate these elements:

1) patriarchal, i.e., to a considerable extent natural, peasant farming;

2) small commodity production (this includes the majority of those peasants who sell their grain);

3) private capitalism;

4) state capitalism;

5) socialism.

Russia is so vast and so varied that all these different types of socio-economic structures are intermingled. This is what constitutes the specific features of the situation.

The question arises: what elements predominate? Clearly in a small-peasant country, the petty-bourgeois element predominates and it must predominate, for the great majority of those working the land are small commodity producers. The shell of our state capitalism (grain monopoly, state controlled entrepreneurs and traders, bourgeois co-operators) is pierced now in one place, now in another by profiteers, the chief object of profiteering being grain.

[Ismail]

Alright, it's less out there than anarcho-technocrat or whatever. That doesn't mean that it's any less needless to replace "Marxist-Leninism" with "Hoxhaism" considering that the former actually makes sense to people whereas the latter doesn't.Every pro-Albanian party on earth styled itself Marxist-Leninist, not "Hoxhaist" which was mainly applied as a pejorative, especially by Maoists.

[Lucretia]

Indeed, in these quotes Lenin was merely speaking about how multiple modes of production can co exist and intermingle. To quote Lenin fully:

You're quoting portions of a different document, a document from which the quote was not taken. The point Lenin was making in the quote I mention has nothing to do with "intermingling modes of production," but is making the point of how the collective property form required for socialism develops in the imperialist stage of capitalism. The point you are making is a related point, but certainly not the same point: that economic development -- including that of the collective property form found both in state capitalism and in socialism -- occurs unevenly both within and across countries.

[Le Socialiste]

Please, please tell me this is exaggerated. I know that there are Trots that are racist, homophobic, misogynist and transphobic scum, but this has to be the most ridiculous things I have ever heard. "You must dislike white people"?

Don't know if this has been answered already - sorry if it has - but the Socialist Equality Party (SEP) is notorious for its borderline, if not outright, racism/sexism. It usually hides behind radical seeming rhetoric, but in essence it's just another organization whose twisted politics and form of analysis have led it towards conservative and reactionary conclusions.

Back on-topic: when socialists spend much of their time "discrediting" others of the same tendency and/or analysis, specifically when it isn't necessarily justified and amounts to little more than sectarian potshots. Sadly this isn't exclusive to the Revleft community.

[Le Socialiste]

Oh yes, and also I just want to take a moment to give Trotskyism some credit. The Socialist Equality Party is a big movement and I'm sure there is a temptation to join it due to it's size and influnce, so I have to applaud Trotskyists who have maintained a privileged line and steered clear of that wretched organization.

The SEP's a relatively tiny organization, what're you talking about? :confused:

[Starship Stormtrooper]

The SEP's a relatively tiny organization, what're you talking about? :confused:

Says the ISO member ;)

[Le Socialiste]

Says the ISO member ;)

Well yeah, the revolutionary left in the U.S. is pretty small. But the SEP is hardly one of the larger groups within that.

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

When people can't stop arguing on a thread. I don't mean debating obviously, but it just gets mean spirited.

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

Someone went on the thread, said the thread was stupid and the conversation was boring, and then said it was bad because people are just stirring stuff up.

And now I'm doing what annoys me because I'm being mean! It's a Revleft Paradox! Fuck!

[#FF0000]

Someone went on the thread, said the thread was stupid and the conversation was boring, and then said it was bad because people are just stirring stuff up.

And now I'm doing what annoys me because I'm being mean! It's a Revleft Paradox! Fuck!

sup dude

[RHIZOMES]

People who can't tell when their critiques of Islam veer from being merely religious critique to full-blown xenophobic racist rhetoric.

See: that guy whose arguments against Islam he'd always source back to http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

[RHIZOMES]

Also I'd say a sizable portion of this forum don't really understand Marxist theory very well, but they speak with a misplaced sense of authority/superiority because they understand basic concepts like surplus value.

Its part of the reason I stopped posting here for a very long time - its educational value decreased with the more Marxist literature I actually read.

[Ele'ill]

not exactly on topic of this thread but something probably unique to revleft and just political forums generally- no longer being able to read edited posts. That could be viewed as a hobby in itself I assure you there are some really wacko shit posts that users think better of.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

The SEP's a relatively tiny organization, what're you talking about? :confused:

They have a pretty big internet pretense and their news site is one of the largest on the left.

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

sup dude

I'm sorry:crying:

[blake 3:17]

They have a pretty big internet pretense and their news site is one of the largest on the left.


Was looking for something else. Couldn't help myself.

edited to add: Oh -- those guys. Bad news.

[Fawkes]

The lack of a thread where I can safely post my n00dZ

[Pirate Utopian]

The lack of a thread where I can safely post my n00dZ

So my inbox isn't good enough anymore?

[Ele'ill]

i know specific situations call for this type of criticism but generally when there is a militant action in the work place or elsewhere and it is considered radical action by the non-radicalized and glorified but when the same exact thing or something similar is carried out somewhere else but followed by a communique or is otherwise noted as having been carried out by radicals it is bombarded by the usual fist fulls of whinging mopey bullshit

[Flying Purple People Eater]

How everyone seems to like complaining about themselves.