Are stalinists restricted again?

[Aurora]

Restricted marxleninstalinmao - uncritical support for the Jucheist Kim regime of the DPRK as a 'socialist state' and 'dictatorship of the proletariat'.
So ya title says it all, are stalinists getting restricted again or was this a mistake?

I'd like a qualification for what 'uncritical support' means, what level of criticism is acceptable?

I would consider many members of the board to have an uncritical support of Stalin for example, even if they say otherwise, but by no means do i think this should be grounds for restriction.

Or if this new policy only refers to the DPRK it amounts to the board taking an official position that the DPRK is different from other ostensibly revolutionary countries.

[Tim Cornelis]

Support for Marxism-Leninism is not restricted, support for Juche is. Thus the qualification of a 'juche-ist' state as socialist (in a supportive context) is a 'restrictable offense'. Support for North Korea that is permissible is that of anti-imperialism, but support for juche is not.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

If only...

[Aurora]

Support for Marxism-Leninism is not restricted, support for Juche is. Thus the qualification of a 'juche-ist' state as socialist (in a supportive context) is a 'restrictable offense'. Support for North Korea that is permissible is that of anti-imperialism, but support for juche is not.

Juche is just the particular form that socialism in one country has taken in the DPRK, the British road to socialism or the SU's SIOC isn't restricted as far as i know.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

This whole thing about restricting people is idiotic. If someone expresses a fascist position on something or some other far-right crap, okay. But throwing out someone because they support North Korea? Come on, comrades what are you afraid of here? One of my favorite posters, A Marxist Historian, who made great contributions to discussions on a regular basis was banned because a mod took exception to his view of the Assange rape case. I certainly have no particular love of the strange Stalinist dictatorship in NK. I defend it against Imperialism, of course. I would wonder about anyone that is enthusiastic about the Kim dynasty, but I also wonder about comrades that still defend the Moscow Trials. It is depressing that in this type of setting things can't be more freewheeling. This kind of thought policing is totally unnecessary.

[Aurora]

If only...
As you're a former stalinist i find this a bit odd, were you not genuine in your support for communism at the time?
Do you think you would have developed your politics to where they are now if you were lumped in with the various pro-capitalists in OI?

[Conscript]

The DPRK doesn't even bother passing itself as a socialist state, based on their constitutional changes, so why should we?

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

As you're a former stalinist i find this a bit odd, were you not genuine in your support for communism at the time?
Do you think you would have developed your politics to where they are now if you were lumped in with the various pro-capitalists in OI?

It didn't develop because of revleft, I probably wouldn't have turned to Stalinism if they were not allowed here in the first place.

[AConfusedSocialDemocrat]

Maybe not the best idea to restrict people, after all, some Stalinists may have something valuable to say in the end, by restricting or banning them we prevent ourseles from ever finding out.

[Aurora]

The DPRK doesn't even bother passing itself as a socialist state, based on their constitutional changes, so why should we?
This doesn't make any sense, first off their constitution opens by calling the DPRK socialist, second i don't care what the constitution writers call the DPRK what matters is what it actually is and third no one is saying that we must recognise the DPRK as anything at all i'm saying is that those who have an obviously mistaken and easily refutable view should be debated and educated not restricted.

This sets a bad precedent for others, if we restrict those who have a mistaken position on the DPRK it leaves the door open for restricting those with a mistaken position on China or Russia etc

The criteria for discussion here should be a genuine commitment to creating communism not a position on a certain state.
I have no doubt that the PSL and WWP members here are genuine communists even if they send letters to the Kim dynasty of 'socialist' Korea.

[Comrade Samuel]

Beating a dead horse here but...yeah....

Juche =/= Marxist-Leninism

[l'Enfermé]

No, Marxist-Leninists are not restricted. Neither are Maoists.

It was decided in January 2011(by the BA) to restrict Saddam Husseinists, Pol Potists, and Jucheists. I have no idea why Jucheists were included in that. North Korea isn't much worse than the Soviet Union under Stalin or China under Mao. In many ways it's better.

Actually, maybe I'll bring this up to the BA tomorrow. Restricting Jucheists is completely nonsensical unless you restrict MLs and Maoists as well.

[La Guaneña]

Yeah, what we need is just an opposite of Soviet Empire, right?

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

It didn't develop because of revleft, I probably wouldn't have turned to Stalinism if they were not allowed here in the first place.

If it didn't develop because of revleft, why did revleft Stalinists turn you into one to begin with? Most of them haven't exactly been a very persuasive bunch.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

If it didn't develop because of revleft, why did revleft Stalinists turn you into one to begin with? Most of them haven't exactly been a very persuasive bunch.

It didn't move beyond stalinism when I was on revleft. I actually was on some sort of break of revleft when I was turning away from Stalinism.

For a rather young, starting communists Stalinism is easy, like anarchism.
Most move beyond it, some stay there.

[La Guaneña]

For a rather young, starting communists Stalinism is easy, like anarchism.
Most move beyond it, some stay there.

On the internet that may be true, but by looking at the biggest, most active parties today, ML is still the dominant tendency, with some parties going towards Mao-Tse-Tung though.

Large parts of these clearly support Stalin's USSR.

There are also the Trotstkists with a big presence in the real world, but I'm not aware of a country where they compose a particularly dangerous revolutionary force right now.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

It was decided in January 2011(by the BA) to restrict Saddam Husseinists, Pol Potists, and Jucheists. I have no idea why Jucheists were included in that. North Korea isn't much worse than the Soviet Union under Stalin or China under Mao. In many ways it's better.

lol... yeah, maybe if we ignore the massive differences I guess we could say that :lol:

[Os Cangaceiros]

"Saddam Husseinists"?

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

"Saddam Husseinists"?

Pan-Arabic Nationalism/Arab Socialism/Ba'athism, I presume. Never heard it called Hussein-ism.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

"Saddam Husseinists"?

I guess Bathists is a better word for it

[melvin]

I really don't understand why being a "Jucheist" is worse than being a Stalinist or Maoist. this seems like an inconsistent rule. and "Saddam Husseinism" is absolutely not a real thing.

The american party for socialism and liberation supports North Korea as a socialist state, same with pretty much all of the other Marxist-Leninist parties like workers world, etc. does this mean members of them are banned?

(not that I am a member of or supportive of those parties)

[Geiseric]

This whole thing about restricting people is idiotic. If someone expresses a fascist position on something or some other far-right crap, okay. But throwing out someone because they support North Korea? Come on, comrades what are you afraid of here? One of my favorite posters, A Marxist Historian, who made great contributions to discussions on a regular basis was banned because a mod took exception to his view of the Assange rape case. I certainly have no particular love of the strange Stalinist dictatorship in NK. I defend it against Imperialism, of course. I would wonder about anyone that is enthusiastic about the Kim dynasty, but I also wonder about comrades that still defend the Moscow Trials. It is depressing that in this type of setting things can't be more freewheeling. This kind of thought policing is totally unnecessary.

What are you serious? Do you want the board to look like morons to new people, reflecting badly on everybody who might start being interested? I mean support for the North Korean state is ridiculous. It's well known with everybody that it's a puppet state for china, a buffer so nobody can invade that way, which necessitates a strong army, while most of the population works for poverty status living conditions. Support for the dominant nomenclatura and bureaucratic state of the USSR which regularly executed dissidents after the great purges and degeneration of the comintern, along with support for the actions leading to those processes, should also be bannable. It's historical dishonesty which is necessary to support Stalinism, and a waste of time to discuss those topics, and to debate blatant lies such as "Trotsky was a fascist sabateur," for pages.

[Crux]

This whole thing about restricting people is idiotic. If someone expresses a fascist position on something or some other far-right crap, okay. But throwing out someone because they support North Korea? Come on, comrades what are you afraid of here? One of my favorite posters, A Marxist Historian, who made great contributions to discussions on a regular basis was banned because a mod took exception to his view of the Assange rape case. I certainly have no particular love of the strange Stalinist dictatorship in NK. I defend it against Imperialism, of course. I would wonder about anyone that is enthusiastic about the Kim dynasty, but I also wonder about comrades that still defend the Moscow Trials. It is depressing that in this type of setting things can't be more freewheeling. This kind of thought policing is totally unnecessary.
Which is of course untrue, it was an unanimous decision by the mod team and had to do with rape apologism moreso than the Assange case itself.
Personally I think AMH made many good posts as well, but you seem to be under the delusion that his banning was somehow my personal decision and not the result of a team decision consistently applying what is revleft policy on these issues. Indeed, if I had argued for making an exception for AMH merely because I think he made many good posts concerning history, because I happen to be a trotskyist, then that would have been hypocritical of me. But even if I had it wouldn't really have mattered because it was an unanimous majority decision and it's not like I have any veto power. So would you please stop making this false claim, LB?

[Sasha]

I really don't understand why being a "Jucheist" is worse than being a Stalinist or Maoist. this seems like an inconsistent rule.

it is, but you know how it is with politics, you sometimes have to make compromises.
besides, most "stalinists" and "maoists" here are also not 100% uncritical supporters of all the actions of the strongmen that gave their name to those tendencies, history gives more than hindsight, it also gives perspective and context.
no one here would argue that for example kmehr rouge/polpotism isnt a all out reactionary ideology but someone could here probably argue that "there where some valid contributions to socialist struggle by Kim il'sung although his rule eventually led to a deformed workers state" without risking any restriction, but calling that dynastical fiefdom of kim jong un "socialism" is just so removed from what we as a board consider communism.

and if one haves a problem with it, go cry at the mutalists, mtw'ists and primmies, i'm sure they think you are treated very mean too. :rolleyes:

[melvin]

Pardon that this might seem like a stupid thing to ask but how can "rape apologism" be a controversial topic?

and no snarky responses like "beats me" coming from someone who has picked a side in this particular incident. what specifically happened that made rape a controversy?

edit: Sorry if it's annoying how many questions I ask.

[Art Vandelay]

Pardon that this might seem like a stupid thing to ask but how can "rape apologism" be a controversial topic?

and no snarky responses like "beats me" coming from someone who has picked a side in this particular incident. what specifically happened that made rape a controversy?

edit: Sorry if it's annoying how many questions I ask.

I'm not entirely sure to be honest, I don't remember the thread real well and wasn't a member of the BA at the time, but I do know AMH was a spart, which a party which supports Roman Polanski. Which is, or should be, a bannable offence in my eyes.

[melvin]

it is, but you know how it is with politics, you sometimes have to make compromises.But Juche is very similar to those ideologies, and not particularly "worse" or objectionable from an outside perspective, so the compromise itself doesn't really make sense.


I'm not entirely sure to be honest, I don't remember the thread real well and wasn't a member of the BA at the time, but I do know AMH was a spart, which a party which supports Roman Polanski. Which is, or should be, a bannable offence in my eyes.a quick google of who Roman Polanski is doesn't make it very clear to me why a political party would take a position on him.

[Art Vandelay]

a quick google of who Roman Polanski is doesn't make it very clear to me why a political party would take a position on him.

Yeah I don't think most parties have a position on him (mainly because it is a given what a socialist would think about the whole situation) but I am fairly certain the sparts did take a position on the Roman Polanski rape case and came out in favor of Polanski. I'm not saying AMH supported the parties line, or what he was banned for, just that he was associated with the sparts, which makes it unsurprising to hear he was banned for rape apologism, since it seems to a common place in his party.

[Sasha]

But Juche is very similar to those ideologies, and not particularly "worse" or objectionable from an outside perspective, so the compromise itself doesn't really make sense.

You see no difference between, let's say Cuba and the DPRK? Let's put it like this, if these where the 80s DDR supporters wouldn't get restricted, ceasesku supporters would probably get banned. And yeah, on Stalin we decided to agree to disagree because we have some further inteligent "Marxist-Leninists" identifying user who bring valuable contributions to the board. Self proclaimed "STALINISTS!!" are hardly ever a problem as they get themselves banned or restricted on one of the many other things that make them reactionary idiots long before we get round to discuss their Stalinism..

[Orange Juche]

Maybe not the best idea to restrict people, after all, some Stalinists may have something valuable to say in the end, by restricting or banning them we prevent ourseles from ever finding out.

Yeah, but it seems like since the days where they went from restricted to unrestricted, their exclusionary, overtly authoritarian mindset has overwhelmed Revleft. Some of the crap that can get you put in OI on here is honestly bullshit.

[melvin]

You see no difference between, let's say Cuba and the DPRK?Of course I see a difference between Cuba and the DPRK. I don't think that's relevant to the overall picture. When I think of archetypal Stalinism, I obviously think of the Soviet Union under Stalin. Same goes for archetypal Maoism being China during Mao's leadership. And Juche would be North Korea during Kim Il Sung. And I see the ideological differences, but I don't see how any of the three are particularly worse than the others.

[l'Enfermé]

"Saddam Husseinists"?
I guess that BA poll happened at a time when the board had a problem with a lot of pro-Saddam users running around, ruining discussions.


Pan-Arabic Nationalism/Arab Socialism/Ba'athism, I presume. Never heard it called Hussein-ism.
Neither have I. The BA poll had it as "Saddamism". Saddamism is a much better tendency name because it sounds like sodomy-ism. If I wasn't a Kautskyist, I would become a Saddamist/Sodomist instead. Second best tendency.

[l'Enfermé]

but calling that dynastical fiefdom of kim jong un "socialism" is just so removed from what we as a board consider communism.

Yeah that's the tricky part about this though. The Jucheists escape the accusation of being pro-Kim monarchists and pro-theshitholethatisDPRK by claiming that nope, the DPRK is not a monarchy, the Kims are just popular by the people that they keep on getting elected to the top position, nope, the DPRK is not a shithole, it's a very prosperous nation, with beautiful cities, full employment, and no starvation at all. This is exactly what the anti-revisionists do. If their line was "well yeah Stalin was a huge dictator asshole under whose leadership the Soviet government killed millions of innocent peasants and workers and socialism is that miserable state of affairs that existed in Russia under Stalin", we'd have to restrict them too for being nuts, but they claim that nope, Stalin wasn't a dictator, and nope, Russia under him was prosperous and everyone was happy and nope no one was killed at all, except for Nazis and spies and saboteurs.

[Art Vandelay]

Honestly, I'd vote to have M-L's restricted, before I'd move to have Jucheists unrestricted. Both make the revolutionary left look equally insane.

[Sasha]

Also, anyone calling themselves a "juchist" without actually living in north Korea is just a political troll, they should be happy we pretend to take them seriously and restrict them instead of banning them like we do with all other trolls...

Oh, And the reason we specified Saddamism instead of baathism was because this was a poll on overt support for genocidal reactionary regimes, there are conceivibly a few strains of baathism that could be called "socialist"

[Crux]

Pardon that this might seem like a stupid thing to ask but how can "rape apologism" be a controversial topic?

and no snarky responses like "beats me" coming from someone who has picked a side in this particular incident. what specifically happened that made rape a controversy?

edit: Sorry if it's annoying how many questions I ask.
Rapeculture happened. Specifically we were discussing the Assange case. AMH came out with the following standpoints and got banned for them:

What was the original basis of all this? Is Assange a sexist? Well, his general Don Juan Casanova if this is Thursday in Sweden gee I can sleep with not just one but two Wikigroupies, and love 'em and leave 'em, quite understandably evokes resentment among women, especially ones he has slept with and left. But it doesn't make him a rapist, just somebody with poor sexual ethics.
In a bourgeois courtroom, we should uphold guilty until proven innocent for everyone.

In the court of public opinion, in a case where you've got Assange and Wikileaks on one side and the American, British and Swedish capitalist classes on the other, we should assume Assange is innocent till proven guilty and Arditi is guilty till proven innocent.
As for Swedish sex crime laws being too strict, that is an obvious legal angle, which anybody who has read this thread can understand. They are, obviously, too strict if the conduct he is *accused* of committing is described is rape.

Since this is a "he said, she said" case, and he didn't after all have a videocamera going during their sexual encounter, from a purely legal standpoint not calling that whore for the CIA who set him up a liar is probably a smart legal move.My bolds. I think that's quite enough for you to see why the moderator team voted unanimously for him to be banned. Also there is no doubt in my mind AMH was also on-board with the Spart line on Roman Polanski, R Kelly, Michael Jackson and NAMBLA, although that did not explicitly come up. Yeah, they are a weird bunch.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

First of all, "Stalinism" usually refers to Marxist-Leninist anti-revisionists and Maoists (and the only ones that explicitly call themselves Stalinists are the so-called Stalinists-Hoxhaists, and I can't honestly say if they're being serious). And the anti-revisionist and em-el-em line on the DPR Korea is much more negative than the one adopted by most orthodox Trotskyist and Marcyist parties.

In general, associating "Stalinism" with Juche, the revisionist ideology of Kimilsungism with Marxist rhetoric replaced by nationalism and militarism, is quite wrong, I think. The DPR Korea might have a similar social basis as the former Soviet Union while comrade Koba was alive, but the ideologies are different.


Yeah, but it seems like since the days where they went from restricted to unrestricted, their exclusionary, overtly authoritarian mindset has overwhelmed Revleft. Some of the crap that can get you put in OI on here is honestly bullshit.

If supporting the restriction of misogynists that would force women to give birth, pacifists that would oppose the revolution, primmies that want the human race to die off, and so on, is authoritarian and indicative of "Stalinism", I guess most people here are authoritarian Stalinists. Funny, that.

[Lokomotive293]

What are you serious? Do you want the board to look like morons to new people, reflecting badly on everybody who might start being interested? I mean support for the North Korean state is ridiculous. It's well known with everybody that it's a puppet state for china, a buffer so nobody can invade that way, which necessitates a strong army, while most of the population works for poverty status living conditions. Support for the dominant nomenclatura and bureaucratic state of the USSR which regularly executed dissidents after the great purges and degeneration of the comintern, along with support for the actions leading to those processes, should also be bannable. It's historical dishonesty which is necessary to support Stalinism, and a waste of time to discuss those topics, and to debate blatant lies such as "Trotsky was a fascist sabateur," for pages.

I thought the point of RevLeft was for it to be a forum where revolutionary leftists of all kinds and colors could come together and discuss revolutionary theory and politics. I agree with resticting people who are not revolutionary leftists. Not because they are reactionary scum who support a system of oppression, though, (which they are, but that is not the point) but because it is necessary to keep the character of the forum, i.e. to not have every thread turn into a capitalism vs. socialism debate.
So, other than that, I don't think purging people whose opinions you don't agree with from the board is a wise idea, or supportive to an environment where critical thinking and debate is encouraged. If you want to do that, you can start a board only for Trotskyists, but that is simply not what RevLeft is supposed to be. And, if you don't want to debate people who post "Trotsky was a fascist, durrr", just don't reply to them. Or report them for trolling.
In general, I think it's important for everyone here to realize that RevLeft is not a political organization, it's an internet forum. The only requirements for allowing people to post on this board should be that they seriously want to debate revolutionary politics, i.e. that they are not here to tell us that "communism is evil", that they are not here to post hateful, bigoted comments, that they are not here for spamming or trolling, etc.

Signed, a humble user and one of the "Stalinists" of RevLeft.

[hatzel]

I remember that proper committed Jucheist on here that one time who was posting a load of stuff about how the Korean blood is naturally predisposed to communism (must only be the North Korean blood lol) and that's why they thought it was important to maintain racial purity because if they let people go fucking Japanese people or whatever then capitalism would be restored. Not entirely sure if such racialism is actually part of DPRK propaganda though the claim has certainly been made by critics, and in this case by somebody who claimed to be a supporter but might have just been a troll, I dunno. Anyway, the point is that there's probably no need to restrict or ban people simply for being Jucheists etc., instead restrict or ban them for the absolute crappppp they're quite likely to bring out in the specific details of their being a Jucheist etc...

[Luís Henrique]

One of my favorite posters, A Marxist Historian, who made great contributions to discussions on a regular basis was banned because a mod took exception to his view of the Assange rape case.

If I correctly recall, he was not just banned, but also publicly libeled (as a "rape apologist", no less!). Anyway, and as much as I disagreed with his strange brand of Trotskyism, his ban was a shame, as he was certainly an above-the-average poster, and certainly nothing even close to a "rape apologist".

Luís Henrique

[Nevsky]

What's all this talk about "stalinism" and maoism being the same as Juche here? We are on a revolutionary leftist forum, not in a bourgeois talk show. The marxist-leninist group of this site contains nearly 500 people, banning all of them would take away a lot of interesting people with qualified opinions.

You have to make the difference between marxists who believe that Stalin was an important figure of marxism (anti-revisionist marxist-leninists) and "stalinists" (nationalist, chauvinist reactionaries). No marxist supporter of Stalin would refer to himself as "stalinist". A jucheist reactionary probably would, Saddam or Milosevic fans, too. These people have nothing to do with Stalin, though, nor do they care about Stalin's contribution to marxism.

Stalin himself would purge most of those internet-nerd type of reactionary "stalinists", nazbols above all.

[F9]

Closed.
Unfair Restrictions thread in OI, the user in question can raise up his possition to be discussed.