Why is Stormfront community larger?

[Roberto]

I saw that you people frequently wonder why your online community is smaller.

As a libertarian I look with repulsion on both racism and big state ideas. I have though been a visitor on both revleft and stormfront and made accounts on both those sites. I am also a member of a lot of sites online and in general like to keep track on things.

As for answers why is stormfront much bigger than revleft I have some simple answers.

1) free speech - not agreeing with ppl on stormfront will not get you banned. as simple as that, they do not ban you unless you are constantly provocating, insulting or spamming, on revleft however it is hard to find active old accounts. ppl who run the site have took the stance of no tolerance to even slightest differences which is especially glaring difference compared to a white supremacist website which does not even mind you not being white or supremacist.

2) comparison with establishment - what most of you people want: big welfare state, criminalization of discrimination, immigration, culture mixing, sexual minority rights ect... is already largely implemented and the part that does not seem realistic - the part about communist utopia is not serious and mature enough concept for people who are not idealist.

in contrast, what most people on stormfront want: a 19th century european society is extremly far from reality in terms of what is currently going on, but extremly possible because all of those things: discrimination based on color, nationality, gender and sexuality are all extremly easy to achieve.

3) the vision - racist movements are actually internationalist... Jobbik is regularily sending their people to work in Croatia with local racists, they in turn go to Italy and Greece to participate and train in various stuff, than you have those people going together to latin america to sabotage Morales, they get funds from some islamist and russian ogranizations which are in term connected to the Serbian mafia which is dealing weapons with someone in middle east etc...

The point is... they are actively spending a lot of money to gain experiance and abbility, wether it is beating up minorities in Hungary, learning to do political activism in Greece, killing immigrants in Russia, dealing weapons in Serbia or sabotaging a government in Colombia... they aim big and they want to build a permanent international network based on a very loose concept which does not even care WHO you and your people are but wether you agree to some basic lines (anti-zionism, anti rothschild, anti minorities, pro nationalism, ethnic separation).

Stormfront is looking to create a permanent community and loyalty from members. It is also important that most of it`s member look upon loyalty in itself to be virtuous.

By comparison leftists generally lack that kind of international connections and from my own experiance have more inner conflicts about small stuff. Also inner conflicts withing right organisations are usually more personal, while in leftist they are more ideological which tends to divide people more strongly.

In conclusion, lack of free speech and credible attempts at gaining loyalty from user base from revleft has made it so that members generally do not care about the website because they cannot even count on being there in a few months and the establishment politicians have already implemented many many socialist ideas so those options that are left are basically unrealistic to achieve without some brilliant and detailed plan which does not exist and you are not working on it.

p.s. I know most of you will disagree and reject this with utter and heart felt disgust and surely accuse me of everything and anything and that is only because those who are likely to agree have already been banned or are afraid of a ban so they will not speak. :laugh:

[Jimmie Higgins]

Thank you for the unsolicited advise :lol:, I hope you don't blame us if we take it with a grain of salt considering that you don't support working class self-emancipation anyway and seem to hold a straw-man view of our politics.

I think the internet can create a distorted sense of things going on in society and this is a good example. The far right do a lot of organizing online because they generally can't get away with more than a flier drop in a community, they have trouble organizing openly and after a period of decline and confusion after the end of the cold war, the far-right was able to re-gain some organization largely through being able to propagandize and organize anonomously online.

The revolutionary left is most definately a minority and has also had some confusion since the end of the cold war (at least among those on the left that actually thought that the USSR represented anything like socialism as well as more reformist socialists being confused by the deconstruction of Keynsianism "welfare-state" capitalism since the late 1970s).

But does the online community reflect the general state or size of the left? I don't think so. For example I'm part of a group of about 1000 active members and hundreds of more causual members or supporters and yet there are only a couple of people from this group who post here, a couple on various other discussion sites. Most of the groups represented on here by other posters probably also have several hundred active members and yet few groups have more than one or two members posting on this site. A lot of the regular posters here are in college or high school and do not have the outlets to do organizing like those of us in urban areas. Many members here are just induvidual activists who are not part of any group and so for them this is a way to debate and learn etc. There are good and bad aspects of this: it allows people to exchange ideas with people they may not come into contact with otherwise for geographical or mobility issues, but it also tends to amp. some of the internal naval-gazing. In short most revolutionaries would want to be speaking and organizing with people in their communities and workplaces, not debating things online with other people who are more or less on the same page.

As for the "free speech" issue: well I've been here a while and I have political disagreements with most of the other mods, so I don't really find this to be the case. More often a political disagreement that is intractible causes frustration which results in flaming or trolling and then someone might get banned. I think there are a lot of ways we could make this site more open and appealing while retaining the ability to not be trolled, but that's a slightly different issue IMO from the argument you raised about "silencing political differences" which I think is just untrue.

Finally the "mainstream politicians have already implemented much of socialism" argument is complete misunderstanding of both revolutionary working class politics and the trajectory of contemporary capitalism over the last generation. First, revolutionary Marxists and Anarchists are not in favor of a series of policies or reforms in of themselves (while many recognize that reforms may have positive or negative impacts to an extent) - our politics is geared towards working class self-emancipation, people taking control of society and their own lives. No politician can "implement" this, we want to organize with our fellow workers while advocating a totally different way of organizing society - democracy in work and society.

As a libertarian you ideologically disagree with keynsian reforms to the extent of claiming it's not capitalism at all but something alien to it, but really keynsianism is just a set of capitalist policies as much as neoliberalism and "free-market" views are. It's just the level of regulation, the level of taxation, the prioritization of this or that - but all within capitalism. We have no "detailed plan" for socialism because our goal is a democraticly run society from the bottom up, you can't tell people how to run things democratically and collectivly, it will be up to millions of people to work out the detailed plans. Most of our "plans" deal with how do we help support existing struggles, how can we convince people that it will take wholesale change, how do we help people organize to promote working class interests. This is our biggest impasse IMO: that for a generation there's been demoralization among people, there's been declining struggles and declining opposition as working class living standards, dismantling of post-war welfare-state reforms, and a resurgance of racism and sexism.

[liberlict]

I call bullshiit on this guy being a Libertarian. You can tell he has a sympathy for nationalism. I bet you guys banned him for being a "fascist" and this is his reply.

[Tim Cornelis]

I saw that you people frequently wonder why your online community is smaller.

There's one thread about it.


As for answers why is stormfront much bigger than revleft I have some simple answers.

1) free speech - not agreeing with ppl on stormfront will not get you banned. as simple as that, they do not ban you unless you are constantly provocating, insulting or spamming, on revleft however it is hard to find active old accounts. ppl who run the site have took the stance of no tolerance to even slightest differences which is especially glaring difference compared to a white supremacist website which does not even mind you not being white or supremacist.

This is the only one that's valid.


2) comparison with establishment - what most of you people want: big welfare state, criminalization of discrimination, immigration, culture mixing, sexual minority rights ect... is already largely implemented and the part that does not seem realistic - the part about communist utopia is not serious and mature enough concept for people who are not idealist.

We actually almost all want to end the state in any form, including a big welfare state. We don't want to criminalise discrimination, we want to make it obsolete. And criminalising immigration? We want freedom of movement. And idealism is reviled on this forum, it will get you virtually lynched.


3) the vision - racist movements are actually internationalist... Jobbik is regularily sending their people to work in Croatia with local racists, they in turn go to Italy and Greece to participate and train in various stuff, than you have those people going together to latin america to sabotage Morales, they get funds from some islamist and russian ogranizations which are in term connected to the Serbian mafia which is dealing weapons with someone in middle east etc...

The point is... they are actively spending a lot of money to gain experiance and abbility, wether it is beating up minorities in Hungary, learning to do political activism in Greece, killing immigrants in Russia, dealing weapons in Serbia or sabotaging a government in Colombia... they aim big and they want to build a permanent international network based on a very loose concept which does not even care WHO you and your people are but wether you agree to some basic lines (anti-zionism, anti rothschild, anti minorities, pro nationalism, ethnic separation).

First of all, this explanation would explain why they are bigger in the real world, not online. Second, not only does the far-left have such networks, the far-left is larger throughout Europe. Note, I don't consider the following far-left parties to be actually revolutionary, but they are far-left nonetheless, and you would expect some of them to join revleft.

Czech Republic: Communist Party won 20% of the votes in the 2012 regional elections.

Portugal: the Marxist-Leninist Portuguese Communist Party and the socialist Left Bloc jointly polled at over 20% of the votes in the latest polls. The largest nationalist/fascist party received 0,31% of the votes in last elections.

Spain: the Eurocommunist-dominated United Left polls around 12-15% of the popular vote. The largest far-right party is not even on the radar.

Greece: The "Eurocommunist"-dominated SYRIZA is polling at nearly 30% of the votes, the Communist Party at 7%. Golden Dawn is polling at 13%.

Denmark: the Red-Green Alliance is polling at 15% of the votes.

Additionally, the syndicalist SAC in Sweden is larger than fascist movements in Sweden (the Sweden Democrats wouldn't fit in the white nationalist stormfront, so I'm excluding them).


By comparison leftists generally lack that kind of international connections and from my own experiance have more inner conflicts about small stuff. Also inner conflicts withing right organisations are usually more personal, while in leftist they are more ideological which tends to divide people more strongly.

There are actually countless transnational connections. For example, European factions in the EU-parliament including all kinds of bourgeois-socialist reformist, though far-left, parties (European United Left–Nordic Green Left) has 34 seats, while the Alliance of European National Movements has 5 seats.


In conclusion, lack of free speech and credible attempts at gaining loyalty from user base from revleft has made it so that members generally do not care about the website because they cannot even count on being there in a few months and the establishment politicians have already implemented many many socialist ideas so those options that are left are basically unrealistic to achieve without some brilliant and detailed plan which does not exist and you are not working on it.

0 socialist ideas, actually. And they are hardly unrealistic as the basic elements have been introduced in revolutions so far, such as workers' control of production, participatory democracy, and labour vouchers.

[Roberto]

I hope you don't blame us if we take it with a grain of salt considering that you don't support working class self-emancipation anyway and seem to hold a straw-man view of our politics.The far right do a lot of organizing online because they generally can't get away with more than a flier drop in a community.

Most of the groups represented on here by other posters probably also have several hundred active members and yet few groups have more than one or two members posting on this site.

so I don't really find this to be the case. More often a political disagreement that is intractible causes frustration which results in flaming or trolling and then someone might get banned.

Finally the "mainstream politicians have already implemented much of socialism" argument is complete misunderstanding of both revolutionary working class politics and the trajectory of contemporary capitalism over the last generation.

We have no "detailed plan" for socialism because our goal is a democraticly run society from the bottom up, you can't tell people how to run things democratically and collectivly, it will be up to millions of people to work out the detailed plans. Most of our "plans" deal with how do we help support existing struggles, how can we convince people that it will take wholesale change, how do we help people organize to promote working class interests.

I support workers running their own businesses, like bands do... they may need a manager but workers still own it fully if it works why not use it. The problem is getting to the point where a complicated business fully privately owned and run by the same family for centuries would be given to workers who worked there for a few years as their start up job during high-school or college and who never even intended for it to be their career path or whatever... that is something I fully reject, but privatizing some special sectors of economy in a way that more-less permanent workers control and own it... why not if it works.

You can say that for far-right groups too. For instance Golden Dawn and Jobbik and Greeks and Hungarians in general are not very numerous there. It might be that they do not feel persecuted so they do not go online too much. However Russian far-right is extremely persecuted and they are still in pitifull numbers there compared to their huge number. Knowledge of English is obligatory.

If you look at most older discussions you will find a huge number of people who posted banned, I have never seen that in any forum or site except here. If we would compare this site to a kind of purge... it would be Campuchian killing fields for sure. Or more because I am sure that more than half of accounts ever made on this site are banned. The tolerance of what is unnacceptable (trolling, fascism, insulting, spamming) is just too low on this site. If this site wants to be popular it should adopt a facebook or youtube level of tolerance. Or atleast Stormfront level :grin:
It would also help if this site would not unlog me every 5 minutes because it takes like half an hour to write a post!

What most of those far-left organizations end up is being plainly `left` and work fully withing the system only changing a few numbers and not being actually revolutionary. However I would even argue that what is going on in North Korea is not even left... they have a monarchy there and people have less power, freedom and food every day than in medieval times, being anti-west and totalitarian does not make you communist.

You at least must have a detailed plan on how to get to the point where a top-down corporatocracy big state turns into a bottom up democracy with little state.

[Roberto]

We actually almost all want to end the state in any form. And idealism is reviled on this forum, it will get you virtually lynched.

First of all, this explanation would explain why they are bigger in the real world, not online. Second, not only does the far-left have such networks, the far-left is larger throughout Europe. Note, I don't consider the following far-left parties to be actually revolutionary.

There are actually countless transnational connections. For example, European factions in the EU-parliament including all kinds of bourgeois-socialist reformist, though far-left, parties (European United Left–Nordic Green Left) has 34 seats, while the Alliance of European National Movements has 5 seats.

0 socialist ideas, actually. And they are hardly unrealistic as the basic elements have been introduced in revolutions so far, such as workers' control of production, participatory democracy, and labour vouchers.

That depends what do you think idealism is. Idealistic thinking is any thinking based upon subjective and optimistic view of humanity. Like counting that humans are in fact virtuous (but corrupted) and not greedy, selfish, disfunctional, error prone bastards they actually are by design. For instance how can you have a direct democracy if some people are just much smarter than other people... how can 1 man be 1 vote if most people do not care 1% about politics and many of those who do care are not educated or smart to understand it? How can you have a community where nobody is exploited when smart people will just trick other people into their bull, especially if you raise kids to be good and not even expect bs everywhere.

I don`t think I would include non-revolutionary parties and individuals to the list of people who `belong` on revleft...

Those ideas are actually far better than what is currently going on even from a libertarian point of view... if worker`s union is run as a private company owning a business there is no problem with free market, in fact those people are much less likely to decide to pollute their enviroment or put toxic products which their families will eat just for small profit. However that economic model must prevent those unions from using their weight to get subsidies from other people because that is an incursion to their fiscal freedom.

I think this site has to move to practical solutions not so much to discussing theory and isms.

[B5C]

"Why is Stormfront community larger? "

Simple: The United States is an Right Wing nation and it is still has a lot of racists.

[#FF0000]

You at least must have a detailed plan on how to get to the point where a top-down corporatocracy big state turns into a bottom up democracy with little state.

Some (Most?) aren't aiming for a top-down corporatocracy at any point.


I think this site has to move to practical solutions not so much to discussing theory and isms.

Either way I don't think Revleft is going to make much of a difference in the world at large.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

If you look at most older discussions you will find a huge number of people who posted banned, I have never seen that in any forum or site except here. If we would compare this site to a kind of purge... it would be Campuchian killing fields for sure. Or more because I am sure that more than half of accounts ever made on this site are banned. The tolerance of what is unnacceptable (trolling, fascism, insulting, spamming) is just too low on this site. If this site wants to be popular it should adopt a facebook or youtube level of tolerance. Or atleast Stormfront level :grin:

Thankfully, this site seems to aim for quality, or at least the providing of a safe space, rather than popularity. And why should our "popularity" among bigots, fascists and liberals matter?

[Tim Cornelis]

That depends what do you think idealism is. Idealistic thinking is any thinking based upon subjective and optimistic view of humanity.

Most here have a materialist basis of their politics, based on objective evaluations of social dynamics, leading them to socialist conclusions.


Like counting that humans are in fact virtuous (but corrupted) and not greedy, selfish, disfunctional, error prone bastards they actually are by design. For instance how can you have a direct democracy if some people are just much smarter than other people... how can 1 man be 1 vote if most people do not care 1% about politics and many of those who do care are not educated or smart to understand it? How can you have a community where nobody is exploited when smart people will just trick other people into their bull, especially if you raise kids to be good and not even expect bs everywhere.

Most politics today is attempting to fix problems caused by capitalism. Unemployment, poverty (redistribution of wealth), and so forth. So logically few are interested in the technical issues of those questions, voting on budgets, and so forth, as it is perceived as too divorced from their lives. Under communism/socialism, such questions have become obsolete, and the only collective decision-making would involve collective infrastructure which directly affects those involved, thus an organic incentive to participate in it.

Abahlali baseMjondolo is a movement consisting of thousands mostly uneducated poverty stricken shack dwellers, yet it functions well. The Zapatistas have participatory democracy in a region with immense poverty and uneducated peasants, many dialects and four different languages, difficult communication using non-modern methods, and terrible infrastructure such as roads in a mountainous jungle area, yet it works.

Additionally, we have Marinaleda, a Spanish town in the province of Andalusia, where direct democracy exists through popular assemblies on neighbourhood level. Workplaces are collectively owned and managed by the workers. The unemployment level is circa 2-3%, whereas in the rest of Andalusia it is ca. 30%. It is also one of the few municipalities in that province without deficit.


I don`t think I would include non-revolutionary parties and individuals to the list of people who `belong` on revleft...

I don't think Marxist-Leninists are revolutionaries and communists proper, yet they are half of revleft.


Those ideas are actually far better than what is currently going on even from a libertarian point of view... if worker`s union is run as a private company owning a business there is no problem with free market, in fact those people are much less likely to decide to pollute their enviroment or put toxic products which their families will eat just for small profit. However that economic model must prevent those unions from using their weight to get subsidies from other people because that is an incursion to their fiscal freedom.

Which ideas and models are we talking about? I don't get how this related to what I wrote.


I think this site has to move to practical solutions not so much to discussing theory and isms.

Practice and theory are intimately tied together.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

I agree with the reactionary, uneducated, op on one point. The banning on this site is far too restrictive. There have been a number of comrades whose posts were educated and well-considered, at least most of the time, that have been banned. But going further, bans should be used for fascist or extreme right-wingers (okay anti-socialists too). There should be room to argue even very contentious points on this forum.

The rest of the post is idotic - getting rid of racism? No problem. Yeah and going back to 19th century European society? Easy as pie. Let me just go and fix my Wayback machine. On a planet with 8 billion humans this guy wants to go back the the 19th century. Verrry nice. And so idealistic (and fantastic) that it makes my teeth hurt.

[Ironfront]

Ah...Stormfront is bigger maybe because Nazis are less popular than lefties and hence need a place they can talk among themselves, i.e., the internet, that lefties don't. I can find a socialist group in any major city and talk to socialists IN THE FLESH with no issue. I can walk down the street in a Eugene Debs 2012 t-shirt and no one bothers me....what would happen if someone walked down the street in a Hitler shirt?

Oh, and Stormfront counts deleted accounts in its membership, so one idiot who has been deleted four times and has four accounts counts as four members.

Racist groups are actually a lot smaller than leftists groups in America, they just get more media attention. A large white supremacist rally consists of twenty people...a large leftists rally consists of a few thousand.

[Roberto]

based on objective evaluations

Most politics today is attempting to fix problems caused by capitalism.

Abahlali baseMjondolo is a movement consisting of thousands mostly uneducated poverty stricken shack dwellers, yet it functions well. The Zapatistas have participatory democracy in a region with immense poverty and uneducated peasants, many dialects and four different languages, difficult communication using non-modern methods, and terrible infrastructure such as roads in a mountainous jungle area, yet it works.

Additionally, we have Marinaleda.

Which ideas and models are we talking about? I don't get how this related to what I wrote.

Practice and theory are intimately tied together.

If they were objective, historical experiments would have produced different results.

Ever since feudalism all economic problems are problems created by capitalism, that does not say much and there was never communism, only state run capitalism.

If you look at a pack of wolves, their social structure `works`, that is not an argument. And even if you would say that some society does not work we could argue that it does not work for you because of cultural bias.

interesting, but never heard of it...

free market capitalism, the model on which most bands run on.

Theory without practice is bent on producing awful results.

[Roberto]

Some (Most?) aren't aiming for a top-down corporatocracy at any point.

Either way I don't think Revleft is going to make much of a difference in the world at large.

Most countries today are top-down corporatocracies.

Facebook ppl never imagined what would their experiment do.

[TheEmancipator]

http://t.qkme.me/3ri3wx.jpg

This is why. If you want to go to an internet clusterfuck of nutters, pseudo-socialists and infantile posters, go to reddit.

I would agree with the above poster though, we should be more open to leftists. Even eurocommunists are seemingly ostracised at alarmingly fast level. Then again being openly revisionist is like being openly gay on Stormfront. A shame.

[Tim Cornelis]

If they were objective, historical experiments would have produced different results.

They? Whom? Historical examples? Which?


Ever since feudalism all economic problems are problems created by capitalism, that does not say much and there was never communism, only state run capitalism.

I don't understand what you mean here.


If you look at a pack of wolves, their social structure `works`, that is not an argument. And even if you would say that some society does not work we could argue that it does not work for you because of cultural bias.

You suggested socialism is idealistic because it is subjective and overly optimistic, and suggested socialism is unattainable. I provided evidence to the contrary and I don't see how this ambiguous analogy refutes that.


interesting, but never heard of it...

free market capitalism, the model on which most bands run on.

Theory without practice is bent on producing awful results.

I still don't see how that relates to what I said.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I would agree with the above poster though, we should be more open to leftists. Even eurocommunists are seemingly ostracised at alarmingly fast level. Then again being openly revisionist is like being openly gay on Stormfront. A shame.

If you really can't see the difference between restricting reformists (most tendencies consider opposing tendencies to be revisionist in some sense) and liberals and homophobia, you need to acquaint yourself with the real world somewhat. If you do understand the difference, but feel justified using the example of homophobia to make insinuations about RevLeft, you need to seriously reconsider what the fuck you're doing.

Comrade Bonsteinovich was talking, I believe, about established, quality, revolutionary socialist posters, who were banned over what might have been minor breaches of the rules. Not about the restricted reformists or whatnot. How would the quality of this site improve if every thread became a great "YOU GUISE COMMUNISM IS GREAT IN THEORY BUT ITS IMPRACTICAL WE NEED TO VOTE FOR THE DEMOCRATS"? We get enough of such rubbish with the current rules.

[Roberto]

They? Whom? Historical examples? Which?

I don't understand what you mean here.

You suggested socialism is idealistic because it is subjective and overly optimistic, and suggested socialism is unattainable. I provided evidence to the contrary and I don't see how this ambiguous analogy refutes that.

I still don't see how that relates to what I said.

Leftists who hold opinions that you described. Historical example: USSR, Cambodia, PRC, East Germany, British welfare state etc... Results that would show those concepts (the objective leftist ones) and policies derived from them creating a richer, freer, more developed world where people are not trying to flee at all costs.

I am saying that since we live in age of capitalism ever since feudalism ended all politics will invariably do is related to (problems of) capitalism even if things are great.

You have not proved anything, you merely mentioned some desparately poor comunities and said that what they have `works`, I am saying that if you are looking at if you look at any community, even a wolf pack... it `works` otherwise they would not exist. Just because something exists does not mean that such form of society or organisation is efficient, thriving, or better than some other form. For instance we have seen that slavery works and that people can live off slaves, does that mean that theory behind slavery (racism) is sound? Nope lol.

That relates to what you said in a manner of counter-argumenting you, see if I have never heard of something you have to show proof. For instance I do not know if Marinelada is in debt... in how much debt, what is their business, demographics etc... In the thirties it looked like what Hitler and Stalin are doing is great because it gave some great results in terms of GDP ...for someone evaluating in that era it would look like that is the way to go... I however would fiercly disagree. You need to look at long term prospects and details.

Other things are answers to your questions, however your main arguments seem to be in the form of expressing your own lack of ability to understand communication, and your cognitive disadvantages which produce that situation are no concern of mine.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I support workers running their own businesses, like bands do... they may need a manager but workers still own it fully if it works why not use it. The problem is getting to the point where a complicated business fully privately owned and run by the same family for centuries would be given to workers who worked there for a few years as their start up job during high-school or college and who never even intended for it to be their career path or whatever... that is something I fully reject, but privatizing some special sectors of economy in a way that more-less permanent workers control and own it... why not if it works.Well a co-op with worker self-management might be a nice place to work, but they are still just managing their own exploitation, so it's really apples and organges for what we're talking about. It would be like saying that a modern capitalist republic and some craft-guild under feudalism holding a vote on something are the same thing.

As for the "centuries old family-run business" - well I doubt that that actually exists anywhere - there are some companies with a family name, that might be old, but it's not run by the family. If the family is even involved in a major decades-old business they are usually just cashing the checks and have some honorary position, they are not making the decisions most likely. And capitalism itself abolishes family-run businesses done out of intererest in the work all the time. If it's not a big company pushing them out, it's the bank debt owning it, etc. Love for what you do really has little to do with capitalism - even for the ruling class. How many companies started in one industry and now are in finance or something totally removed from where it stated? That's capitalism, it's about following the path of maximized profits: all other considerations are secondary.


You can say that for far-right groups too. For instance Golden Dawn and Jobbik and Greeks and Hungarians in general are not very numerous there. It might be that they do not feel persecuted so they do not go online too much. However Russian far-right is extremely persecuted and they are still in pitifull numbers there compared to their huge number. Knowledge of English is obligatory.Maybe, my view is mostly annecdotal and I don't have hard facts on it. This is just the sense I get from being an organizer in real life. I grew up in a pretty racist area and there were white-power gangs but they were not really ideological, they were mostly just street-gangs. The ideological far-right has very little public profile in cities and most suburbs (though there are pockets) in the US. Where they are most vocal seems to be online.


If you look at most older discussions you will find a huge number of people who posted banned, I have never seen that in any forum or site except here. If we would compare this site to a kind of purge... it would be Campuchian killing fields for sure. Or more because I am sure that more than half of accounts ever made on this site are banned. The tolerance of what is unnacceptable (trolling, fascism, insulting, spamming) is just too low on this site. If this site wants to be popular it should adopt a facebook or youtube level of tolerance. Or atleast Stormfront level :grin:
It would also help if this site would not unlog me every 5 minutes because it takes like half an hour to write a post!I don't think anyone would be in favor of a facebook or youtube free-for-all. This site exists specifically for internal left-wing discussion and I think there are strengths and weaknesses to that. That being said, as I mentioned before, I think there is a lot of room for changes - both in softening rules regarding banning and in being more open to people who may be to our right (i.e. not right-wingers but maybe left-leaning reformists) to at least participate without stigma in the non-revolutionary section of the board (currently O.I.) and in fact I started a thread about this a few months ago in the moderator's forum. But as it stands there are specific requirements for participation in the revolutionary section of the board (and actually some former mods wanted it to be even more strict and there are a lot of regular members here who would like to just get rid of OI altogether). But frankly from what I've seen the vast majority of bannings have not been politically motivated in any way. In fact, often, people self-ban - they get frustrated and then either pick fights with other members until they are kicked off and I can think of a number of times that a frustrated member will just write "Fuck you all, ban me" followed by a string of sexist or homophobic slurs.

In my opinion, people need to remember that this is the internet and low-stakes: which goes both for heavy-handed moderation as well as people who constantly complain that any moderation is a "purge" or that a verbal warning or some other soft measure is "political silencing".


What most of those far-left organizations end up is being plainly `left` and work fully withing the system only changing a few numbers and not being actually revolutionary. However I would even argue that what is going on in North Korea is not even left... they have a monarchy there and people have less power, freedom and food every day than in medieval times, being anti-west and totalitarian does not make you communist.I'm not sure what you are referencing in the first part, but about North Korea - well I think you'd find wide agreement on that view here - few people think that North Korea is socialist in any way - even those who defend other so-called socialist regimes.


You at least must have a detailed plan on how to get to the point where a top-down corporatocracy big state turns into a bottom up democracy with little state.Really right now, I think our goal needs to be how do we re-establish radical tradditions in the working class. We are sort of back to square one in a lot of ways after the farce of 20th century "Communism". The half-full side of this is that the Left that is not hitched to reformist or Stalinist regimes has a better chance of being rebuilt on better foundations and with better politics, re-focused on the heart of Marxism in my view: working class self-emancipation. The half-empty side of this is that even reformist vehicles for workers being able to organize and defend themselves have largely been either dismantled, destroyed, or pulled unapologetically under the wings of neoliberal politics. This has caused a lot of confusion and demoralization among working class people: one example would be that more people in the US want a union in the abstract than actually join unions. Part of that is access to unions, but I think it also has to do with some recognition in both the need to have some kind of defense on the job, but also that the current trade-unions offer no such defense (or even pretend to anymore). Union leaders cut deals with Obama to "save an industry" by giving up benifits and wages and then tell their workers it was a sucess because they didn't have to go on strike. At any rate, the point is, that detailed plans in the absense of the participants and driving force (militant workers) behind those plans is an abstract excercize in my view. So I think the most realistic and helpful plan at this point for our goals is to try and help organize working class struggles while at the same time trying to win workers to radical viewpoints so that we can begin to rebuild class struggle and revolutionary ideas as an organic core of that.

Struggles of this sort really can't have detailed plans because there's always an element of spontaniousness to the way class struggle develops. People in Egypt have been struggling for years trying to organize movements of workers and against the dictatorship and no doubt all those efforts helped in many ways to pave the way for the recent uprisings, but they could not have planned for such an outpouring - at best they could try and prepare for such a situation.

[Tim Cornelis]

Leftists who hold opinions that you described. Historical example: USSR, Cambodia, PRC, East Germany, British welfare state etc... Results that would show those concepts (the objective leftist ones) and policies derived from them creating a richer, freer, more developed world where people are not trying to flee at all costs.

Workers' control of production and participatory democracy hasn't existed in any of these places. All these places never surpassed commodity production, capital, or wage-labour, and hence, by Marxist standards, are considered capitalist in nature. This being based on objective evaluations of social dynamics, not subjective definitions of what one considers a "big government" (e.g. some right-libertarians consider Thatcher a socialist because they subjectively evaluate the British government to have been "big" under her rule).


I am saying that since we live in age of capitalism ever since feudalism ended all politics will invariably do is related to (problems of) capitalism even if things are great.

You don't seem to have understand my point. Whether or not to construct a road is an issue both in capitalist and communist society, how to solve unemployment only in the former. My point was not a blanket statement saying politics is merely trying to solve problems produced by capitalism. Hence, 'politics' under communism merely concerns decisions regarding collective infrastructure. My point, thus was, that it involves far less time than current political procedures.


You have not proved anything, you merely mentioned some desparately poor comunities and said that what they have `works`, I am saying that if you are looking at if you look at any community, even a wolf pack... it `works` otherwise they would not exist. Just because something exists does not mean that such form of society or organisation is efficient, thriving, or better than some other form. For instance we have seen that slavery works and that people can live off slaves, does that mean that theory behind slavery (racism) is sound? Nope lol.

That relates to what you said in a manner of counter-argumenting you, see if I have never heard of something you have to show proof. For instance I do not know if Marinelada is in debt... in how much debt, what is their business, demographics etc... In the thirties it looked like what Hitler and Stalin are doing is great because it gave some great results in terms of GDP ...for someone evaluating in that era it would look like that is the way to go... I however would fiercly disagree. You need to look at long term prospects and details.

You suggested such institutions could not work, I proved otherwise. As for the economic conditions of those communities, a different discussion, those are only limitedly relevant to me as I consider all of them to be self-managed capitalism. There are some economic indications they outperform their regional competitors, but I don't have time to detail them here.


Other things are answers to your questions, however your main arguments seem to be in the form of expressing your own lack of ability to understand communication, and your cognitive disadvantages which produce that situation are no concern of mine.

I think you're mistaking your incoherence with my "cognitive disadvantage". It may help if you'd answer my questions with each question separately and not vaguely appeal to them in a long ramble where you attempt to answer them all at once, making it unclear as to what exactly you are replying to.

[Ironfront]

If you really can't see the difference between restricting reformists (most tendencies consider opposing tendencies to be revisionist in some sense) and liberals and homophobia, you need to acquaint yourself with the real world somewhat. If you do understand the difference, but feel justified using the example of homophobia to make insinuations about RevLeft, you need to seriously reconsider what the fuck you're doing.

Comrade Bonsteinovich was talking, I believe, about established, quality, revolutionary socialist posters, who were banned over what might have been minor breaches of the rules. Not about the restricted reformists or whatnot. How would the quality of this site improve if every thread became a great "YOU GUISE COMMUNISM IS GREAT IN THEORY BUT ITS IMPRACTICAL WE NEED TO VOTE FOR THE DEMOCRATS"? We get enough of such rubbish with the current rules.


And that is the issue and why Stormfront is bigger than Revleft: this board is elitist, while Stormfront, while a collection of idiots and fascist douche-monkeys, as much as I hate to say it, is less elitist.

Studying racialist morons is something of a hobby and I have noticed they have factions themselves. They have "reformists" who are only slightly more overtly racist than most Republicans and some Democrats, political minded hardliners like the David Duke crowd, do-nothing Hollywood Nazis and nearly terrorists types, like the World Church of the Creator. And Stormfront is open to them all...

Revleft? You would probably ban a Troskyte who suggested someone vote for gay marriage because said comrade is "supporting the state."

I am not a liberal, hate the Democratic (sic) party, can't stand that corporate owned right-wing hack Obama and would never take armed self defense off the table. But, I am still labeled a "petty bourgeoisie" because I vote (third party and referendums) and do not believe the capitalist mode of production should be completely done away with.

Something to keep in mind: if Eugene Debs and Malcolm X were alive today, they would be banned or at least restricted from Revleft.

Stormfront is bigger because they have a big tent (a big tent filled with fascist fools, but a big tent none the less) while Revleft is small because it seems to be elitist as can be. Reminds me of how the communists and the Social Democrats both lost Germany to the Nazis and why? Because the Nazis were willing to work with the monarchists and non-fascist radical right while the communists attacked the Social Democrats, despite Trosky's urging to put differences aside and unite against a common foe.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

And that is the issue and why Stormfront is bigger than Revleft: this board is elitist, while Stormfront, while a collection of idiots and fascist douche-monkeys, as much as I hate to say it, is less elitist.
Bullshit! I was banned for posting gay-porn there!

Although I do wholly agree that Revleft has banned members over ridiculous reasons (sometimes even personal ones with poor excuses for them), I don't think we should be as open as stabber-of-blacks land.


Studying racialist morons is something of a hobby and I have noticed they have factions themselves. They have "reformists" who are only slightly more overtly racist than most Republicans and some Democrats, political minded hardliners like the David Duke crowd, do-nothing Hollywood Nazis and nearly terrorists types, like the World Church of the Creator. And Stormfront is open to them all...
That's because they are all just that - supremacist groups. There's common ground for them there. Are you suggesting we unrestrict these kinds of people on Revleft?



Revleft? You would probably ban a Troskyte who suggested someone vote for gay marriage because said comrade is "supporting the state."
This isn't true. In fact, many admins voted for gay-marriage.


I am not a liberal, hate the Democratic (sic) party, can't stand that corporate owned right-wing hack Obama and would never take armed self defense off the table.
That's great, but I fail to see how guns being banned has any connection to corporate agenda.



But, I am still labeled a "petty bourgeoisie" because I vote (third party and referendums) and do not believe the capitalist mode of production should be completely done away with.
Then you're for an exploitative and wasteful economic system that ruins lives and creates inequality of its' own merit.


Something to keep in mind: if Eugene Debs and Malcolm X were alive today, they would be banned or at least restricted from Revleft.


How would Eugene Debs be restricted? He was full-on cosmopolitan, unlike monsieur.

[#FF0000]

Revleft? You would probably ban a Troskyte who suggested someone vote for gay marriage because said comrade is "supporting the state."

You wouldn't, actually? Revleft is ultra ban-happy for sure (and that isn't a controversial statement to make in the least), but you could maybe try using actual good examples instead of that hypothetical that actually isn't true at all?


But, I am still labeled a "petty bourgeoisie" because I vote (third party and referendums) and do not believe the capitalist mode of production should be completely done away with.


People disagree with you and call your politics reformist. Marxist-Leninists get called Stalinists, left-coms get called infantile. Sorry dude but people who don't like your politics are going to criticize them.


Something to keep in mind: if Eugene Debs and Malcolm X were alive today, they would be banned or at least restricted from Revleft.


Probably, yeah, considering they came from a different time period and would probably say some shit that we think of as pretty messed up to say today. You aren't really saying anything, here.


Stormfront is bigger because they have a big tent (a big tent filled with fascist fools, but a big tent none the less) while Revleft is small because it seems to be elitist as can be. Reminds me of how the communists and the Social Democrats both lost Germany to the Nazis and why? Because the Nazis were willing to work with the monarchists and non-fascist radical right while the communists attacked the Social Democrats, despite Trosky's urging to put differences aside and unite against a common foe.

I guess stormfront is less elitist in that their only requirement for entry is to hate black people. I don't think being "elitist" is our problem, though. I think, mainly:

1) Leftists are too busy irl
2) Revleft is a really shitty board in general with admins that make poor decisions and a pretty dumb userbase thanks to ban-happy mods and admins.

I think we should focus on these things instead of trying to make nice with people who disagree with us. Liberals and social democrats aren't revolutionary leftists. Sorry~

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

And that is the issue and why Stormfront is bigger than Revleft: this board is elitist, while Stormfront, while a collection of idiots and fascist douche-monkeys, as much as I hate to say it, is less elitist.

Maintaining the focus of this site is not "elitism", nor is protecting members from the usual idiotic bigotry "elitist". This site is intended to be a place for revolutionary socialists to discuss socialism. Those who are not revolutionary socialists are restricted in order to prevent the site from degenerating into endless unproductive discussions with such people, and those that are disruptive are banned. It's as simple as that.


Studying racialist morons is something of a hobby and I have noticed they have factions themselves. They have "reformists" who are only slightly more overtly racist than most Republicans and some Democrats, political minded hardliners like the David Duke crowd, do-nothing Hollywood Nazis and nearly terrorists types, like the World Church of the Creator. And Stormfront is open to them all...

Because they are all racists. Reformists, social democrats and liberals are not revolutionary leftists, so the analogy fails.


Revleft? You would probably ban a Troskyte who suggested someone vote for gay marriage because said comrade is "supporting the state."

This is not true, as has already been pointed out.


I am not a liberal, hate the Democratic (sic) party, can't stand that corporate owned right-wing hack Obama and would never take armed self defense off the table. But, I am still labeled a "petty bourgeoisie" because I vote (third party and referendums) and do not believe the capitalist mode of production should be completely done away with.

And therefore, you are not a revolutionary socialist. Is this so difficult to grasp? An editorial decision has been made to restrict you to the Opposing Ideologies forum in order to keep the rest of the forums relatively focused.


Something to keep in mind: if Eugene Debs and Malcolm X were alive today, they would be banned or at least restricted from Revleft.

So what? Our attitudes and norms evolve. Are we going to fawn over everything these people said and lower our standards in order to accommodate some of their outdated views? I'd rather that we didn't.


Stormfront is bigger because they have a big tent (a big tent filled with fascist fools, but a big tent none the less) while Revleft is small because it seems to be elitist as can be. Reminds me of how the communists and the Social Democrats both lost Germany to the Nazis and why? Because the Nazis were willing to work with the monarchists and non-fascist radical right while the communists attacked the Social Democrats, despite Trosky's urging to put differences aside and unite against a common foe.

Except we aren't fighting fascists here, are we? If you want to join some online fighting detachment against Stormfront or whatever, be our guest. But this site isn't such a detachment.

And a big tent filled with idiots is still... well, filled with idiots. I have no idea why you expect us to be like Stormfront.


2) Revleft is a really shitty board in general with admins that make poor decisions and a pretty dumb userbase thanks to ban-happy mods and admins.

I think there are too many bans of quality posters, and not enough bans or restrictions of low-quality ones, to be honest. I doubt this is due to any sort of conscious decision on the part of the board administration, though; quality posters are more visible so even minor breaches of the rules will be noticed by the admins.

[#FF0000]

I think there are too many bans of quality posters, and not enough bans or restrictions of low-quality ones, to be honest. I doubt this is due to any sort of conscious decision on the part of the board administration, though; quality posters are more visible so even minor breaches of the rules will be noticed by the admins.

I think I sounded a little too mean saying "dumb". All of us were new to this political nonsense at some point, but when we were new, we had hella people well-versed in this stuff to talk to. I don't think it's quality vs. low-quality. I'd say it's more people new to leftist theory and practice vs. people relatively well versed in theory and practice.

We banned a ton of people who were really fucking good with theory n practice, on top of being unreasonably on-point in a lot of things beyond obscure left-wing nerd bullshit.

[cynicles]

"Why is Stormfront community larger? "

Simple: The United States is an Right Wing nation and it is still has a lot of racists.
Not to mention the centre of the largest global empire currently active.

[Comrade #138672]

Because racism is still prevalent.

[Slavoj Zizek's Balls]

Malcolm X recanted his views on segregation. Always look at the complete being at the end of their journey, kinda helps to do that before claiming that Malcolm X would be banned for not being cosmopolitan.

[Questionable]

Hasn't Stormfront also been around twice as long as Revleft, and had its origins in an actual organization instead of a collection of internet comrades? I'm pretty sure it was started in the early 1990s by the Ku Klux Klan.

The fact that such a well-known fascist organization started the website would give it credibility among other white supremacists, whereas anyone on the internet can start a website like Revleft and no one has any real reason to join (No offense).

[Roberto]

Workers' control of production and participatory democracy hasn't existed in any of these places. All these places never surpassed Marxist standards

You don't seem to have understand my point. Whether or not to construct a road is an issue both in capitalist and communist society, how to solve unemployment only in the former. My point was that it involves far less time than current political procedures.

You suggested such institutions could not work, I proved otherwise. As for the economic conditions of those communities, a different discussion, those are only limitedly relevant to me as I consider all of them to be self-managed capitalism. There are some economic indications they outperform their regional competitors, but I don't have time to detail them here.

I think you're mistaking your incoherence with my "cognitive disadvantage". It may help if you'd answer my questions with each question separately and not vaguely appeal to them in a long ramble where you attempt to answer them all at once, making it unclear as to what exactly you are replying to.

Things looked `objective and logical` to those who created those failures which I mentioned. Of course you have an optimistic opinion of some new schemes, but since they are like those former based on an idealistiy view of essentially virtuous nature of human being it is destined to fail again. Perhaps even more so due to arrogance of someone who thinks he has learned upon the errors of old.

Much like I prefer my girlfriend not calling me 10 times a day I prefer a society which does not care if I am employed, suicidal, taking steroids, or cheating my gf with a tranny whore... on another level since there is free renewable energy and machines to work there is a significant surplus enabeling a part of the population not to work at all even if they can. I agree that current beaurocratic bs in most of the world is inefficient and should be replaced by a better system, perhaps modeled on Swiss democracy.

I was suggesting it does not make sense to give a retard, mentally ill, uneducated or even those with superficial interest or understanding of politics a vote... for instance my grandmother and grandfather (senile and demented) voted for my country to join EU simply because of all the media hype the state TV forced upon us, before that they were always against it! My best friend`s mother (uninterested in politics) voted for the biggest party `because she knew they would win` basically that is a very iresponcible woman which just wanted to fell like `a winner` by voting for a winner. People are mostly scum, low life, iresponcible, liars, culturally deficient and unbelievably flawed they tend to get ppl like them in power and decision which suit their disgusting nature into law, they are easily tricked, fooled and manipulated.

Btw this disgusting peasant is the mayor of my city... elected by his peers (of peasant majority immigrants from the countryside) threw a democratic way: htt p://ww w.24sata.hr/politika/veseli-kerum-stavio-oblog-od-prsuta-na-svoje-opaljeno-celo-314537 remove the spaces

Connect the dots or move on. I do not have time to focus on every single word you said, this post took me 26 minutes.

[liberlict]

"Free speech", is limited most places, to be fair. There are not many forums you can post tirades about n*ggers and Jews and keep your account. Stormfront is an exception more than a rule.

[Crux]

Revleft? You would probably ban a Troskyte who suggested someone vote for gay marriage because said comrade is "supporting the state."

I am not a liberal, hate the Democratic (sic) party, can't stand that corporate owned right-wing hack Obama and would never take armed self defense off the table. But, I am still labeled a "petty bourgeoisie" because I vote (third party and referendums) and do not believe the capitalist mode of production should be completely done away with.

Something to keep in mind: if Eugene Debs and Malcolm X were alive today, they would be banned or at least restricted from Revleft.

Stormfront is bigger because they have a big tent (a big tent filled with fascist fools, but a big tent none the less) while Revleft is small because it seems to be elitist as can be. Reminds me of how the communists and the Social Democrats both lost Germany to the Nazis and why? Because the Nazis were willing to work with the monarchists and non-fascist radical right while the communists attacked the Social Democrats, despite Trosky's urging to put differences aside and unite against a common foe.
Right. I am a trotskyist. I support gay marriage as a basic democratic right. I also happen to be an administrator of this forum. The real problem with your position is that you do not even believe in ending capitalism.
Again, this forum is called Revleft, meaning we strive to be a forum for the revolutionary left. As far as I'm concerned that's a broad enough tent. And you getting flack over being a self-admitted reformist is not the same as every one of those somehow being an expression of board policy because we are a pretty broad tent and we certainly disagree quite strongly among each other. We do have a base-line, mind, and that is being in favour of the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism. Again you are still very welcome to discuss with us here in OI though.

[Ironfront]

Right. I am a trotskyist. I support gay marriage as a basic democratic right. I also happen to be an administrator of this forum. The real problem with your position is that you do not even believe in ending capitalism.
Again, this forum is called Revleft, meaning we strive to be a forum for the revolutionary left. As far as I'm concerned that's a broad enough tent. And you getting flack over being a self-admitted reformist is not the same as every one of those somehow being an expression of board policy because we are a pretty broad tent and we certainly disagree quite strongly among each other. We do have a base-line, mind, and that is being in favour of the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism. Again you are still very welcome to discuss with us here in OI though.


When did I ever say I was a reformist? "Reformist" implies that one believes "reform" is the end, and not just one form of "mean", a "revolutionary" is one who thinks revolution is the only end and means, while "evolutionary" is one who believes reform and upheaval are equally important in the large, painstaking struggle to create socialism and ultimately a classes, stateless society.

If Salvador Allende was alive today, he would be called a "reformist, petty bourgeoisie blah blah" as well...

[Paul Pott]

Stormfront is the main online gathering of white supremacism globally, and receives tons of curious visitors and opponents.

While Revleft is the biggest revolutionary leftist forum, there is no equivalent for the left.

Secondly, Revleft's core membership is from the part of the world (North America, the Anglophone, and to a lesser extent North and Western Europe) where the left is weak numerically, and in the rest of the world it does not congregate online, at least not on forums like Revleft. The white supremacists have the opposite situation.

You could fit all of our Latin American, Arab, Russian, Greek, French, Indian, etc. members into a room, all regions or countries where there are major communist movements.

From what I've seen we have like two active KKE members and ten from every Trot sect in Britain and anarchist collective in Holland.

[Comrade Nasser]

I feel like we have a thread like this once a week lol.

Long story short: White male capitalist supremacists do not want to lose the privilege that being a heterosexual white male bestows upon them (I f you can't see white male privilege please just look around you) and they feel as if larger numbers of non-whites will threaten the power they hold over the religious, racial, and sexual minorities that reside in supposed "white countries". Its funny that they actually support the idea of "race" besides the FACT that we all look different from years of MIXING RACES and living in different environments. But who can blame them? They have the power and they don't wanna lose it. Thats why anyone who isn't a white male jackass capitalist supremacist needs to oppose these losers.

[4MyNation]

The Reds beat the Nazis before, we shall do it again comrade.

Long live the Revolution!

[Igor]

"Why is Stormfront community larger? "

Simple: The United States is an Right Wing nation and it is still has a lot of racists.

stormfront is really international though

like notably more so than revleft

[Vireya]

The Reds beat the Nazis before, we shall do it again comrade.

Long live the Revolution!

The "reds" you refer to weren't even socialists.

[Sea]

We've had threads exactly like this before, asking the same question. Sockpuppet?
The "reds" you refer to weren't even socialists.As fun as it is to say things like this, no.
The Reds beat the Nazis before, we shall do it again comrade.

Long live the Revolution!4YourWhat?

[Goblin]

I think the fact that David Duke contributes to their forum can have something to do with it. The guy is really famous.

[D-A-C]

Hmmmm maybe the answer as to why there is more of them than us is that it is easier to be thick as dogsh*t than actually develop logical political arguments that could work in real life?

I'm guessing (I wouldn't go to the site tbh) that alot of the solving of problems for them involves ... 'get rid of the darkies!!!', 'get rid of the jews!!!', 'get rid of the gays!!!' etc etc.

Not exactly a very well thought out political position, but its probably quite effective with stupid people.

The fact is, in order to be a Marxist, you have to read and think intelligently. In order to be a Fascist, racist, piece of cr*p you just need to have a small IQ, which unfortunately, alot of people have.

I feel sorry for Fascists and others like them in a way. They really are stupid and ignorant. Half of them don't know Mussolini was originally a Marxist or that they stole lots of organizational ideas from Communists. Also, their version of science is laughable.

Like I said, being a Fascist implies a level of stupidity that is so mind-boggling to me that its like having some sort of mental disability. Therefore it is more worthy of my pity than scorn.

[G4b3n]

I have spoken out multiple times about the banning of comrades who do not deserve it. This is a major problem if we want to have a community in which people can discuss their actual stance on issues and not be afraid of being labeled a reactionary. I believe we should establish free speech even for reactionaries that join, because people are people not their political titles. I doubt this will happen though.

[G4b3n]

Hmmmm maybe the answer as to why there is more
However under a revolutionary workers government I'd still have no problem putting on a political Commissar's uniform, rounding them all up, putting a pistol to the backs of their heads and pulling the trigger.

But sometimes us Marxist-Leninists can be extreme like that I guess.


:crying:

[D-A-C]

:crying:

Ha, ha :laugh:

I was joking...or was I? ;) :D :scared:






(Of course I was kidding, it was just a little dark humour. Although Fascists are thick as dogsh*t and twice as stupid. That part was not a joke.)

[Sam_b]

This sort of thread pops up all the time and is painfully simple to answer. It can probably be answered in two parts:

1. The fact that Nazis etc keep getting roundly humiliated in areas where Stormfront has high membership (US etc) and have not been able to build a ground movement means that they've been relegated into cyberspace with little or no influence;

2. Because they have no actual movement, they resort to the internet to try and scrape some sort of organisational direction together. They haven't done so successfully yet.

I'm not particularly worried that it's bigger than Revleft, notwithstanding they have some rich backers, but more so because we have our movement and organisation on the streets, in communities, and in unions. In short, because we're doing real political work, and we're also chasing them out at the same time.

[Vireya]

This sort of thread pops up all the time and is painfully simple to answer. It can probably be answered in two parts:

1. The fact that Nazis etc keep getting roundly humiliated in areas where Stormfront has high membership (US etc) and have not been able to build a ground movement means that they've been relegated into cyberspace with little or no influence;

2. Because they have no actual movement, they resort to the internet to try and scrape some sort of organisational direction together. They haven't done so successfully yet.

I'm not particularly worried that it's bigger than Revleft, notwithstanding they have some rich backers, but more so because we have our movement and organisation on the streets, in communities, and in unions. In short, because we're doing real political work, and we're also chasing them out at the same time.

Not really, if you think about it, communism (or any sort of socialism for that matter) are shunned just as much as nazism-fascism. I don't know why you're trying to make it seem as if it is somehow better off. The Liberals have pretty much shoved communism out of political relevance.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Not really, if you think about it, communism (or any sort of socialism for that matter) are shunned just as much as nazism-fascism. I don't know why you're trying to make it seem as if it is somehow better off. The Liberals have pretty much shoved communism out of political relevance.

How many local, national, regional and international protests over the past, well, whenever, have been organised by fascists, nazis, white nationalists, etc.?

And how many protests, demonstrations, marches and resistance movements have originated out of unions, out of worker self-organisation, out of the organisation of leftist groups?

Communism will quite obviously never have any place in a Capitalist political system. How could it? The point is, that that is not a particularly good barometer of either relevance or success.

The left isn't, admittedly, great, but all over the world still has a place in working class communities, which is something that cannot be said for the fash.

[Sam_b]

Not really, if you think about it, communism (or any sort of socialism for that matter) are shunned just as much as nazism-fascism. I don't know why you're trying to make it seem as if it is somehow better off. The Liberals have pretty much shoved communism out of political relevance.

Last time I checked we weren't getting hounded off the streets like the SF fascists are. Perhaps you have seen different?

Or (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left_Front_(France)) any (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left_Bloc) sort (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_Communist_Party) of (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Bohemia_and_Moravia) socialism? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_of_the_Radical_Left)

[Vireya]

How many local, national, regional and international protests over the past, well, whenever, have been organised by fascists, nazis, white nationalists, etc.?

And how many protests, demonstrations, marches and resistance movements have originated out of unions, out of worker self-organisation, out of the organisation of leftist groups?

Communism will quite obviously never have any place in a Capitalist political system. How could it? The point is, that that is not a particularly good barometer of either relevance or success.

The left isn't, admittedly, great, but all over the world still has a place in working class communities, which is something that cannot be said for the fash.

I've never seen commies do anything, IRL, if you ask me they're just like the white nationalists over at Stormfront, a bunch of diehard keyboard warriors.

The modern left, all they do is bend to the will of liberals and forget their purpose.

[Sam_b]

Ah, but no. It is not about your opinion of 'the modern day left', as you say yourself:


communism (or any sort of socialism for that matter)

It does not matter to your argument whether or not they 'bend to the will of liberals', as your point was that the left (be it 'communists' 'reformists' or 'socialists') is apparently just as weak as the far-right. If, as you say, they 'bend to the will of liberals', then, by your very reasoning, they must exist as some sort of force in order for liberals to relate to them.

This wasn't about whether or not you care for the left, but whether or not they exist as a movement on a bigger level than the fascists. You've just proven it yourself.

It's also interesting you seem to make no distinction between that of parties, local community movements or trader unions. Maybe if you stopped treating the left as some sort of mass you'd see there's stuff being done (maybe if you actually did some of it).

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

I've never seen commies do anything, IRL, if you ask me they're just like the white nationalists over at Stormfront, a bunch of diehard keyboard warriors.

The modern left, all they do is bend to the will of liberals and forget their purpose.
where are you from?

[Sam_b]

.
I'm from North Carolina, and much like the rest of the US, most people are profit mongering capitalists.

[Vireya]

Ah, but no. It is not about your opinion of 'the modern day left', as you say yourself:



It does not matter to your argument whether or not they 'bend to the will of liberals', as your point was that the left (be it 'communists' 'reformists' or 'socialists') is apparently just as weak as the far-right. If, as you say, they 'bend to the will of liberals', then, by your very reasoning, they must exist as some sort of force in order for liberals to relate to them.

This wasn't about whether or not you care for the left, but whether or not they exist as a movement on a bigger level than the fascists. You've just proven it yourself.

It's also interesting you seem to make no distinction between that of parties, local community movements or trader unions. Maybe if you stopped treating the left as some sort of mass you'd see there's stuff being done (maybe if you actually did some of it).

The fascists do the samething, they end up being absorbed into more moderate (compared to them) rightist parties.

I'd have more respect for the supposesly hard working left, if they actually spent their time trying to promote socialism instead of legislating liberal social policies. If communists are supposed to be so opposed to liberalism (as I am, and they rightfully should be), then why are their programs so closely allied?

[4MyNation]

StormFront is already infiltrated, their racist diabolic pro-fascist capitalist ways will be no more. Within a few years, it will be a Pro-Left communist site. We shall have no opposition. I bet everyone on StormFront is some fat redneck who smokes cigarettes all day.

[Sam_b]

The fascists do the samething, they end up being absorbed into more moderate (compared to them) rightist parties

I'll even give you a head start here - Hungary and Greece (although we are aware that SYRIZA is larger). I can't think of any other state of the top of my head with a significantly established and elected fascist organisation running the show. I've given you a bunch of examples for the left, though. Maybe to try and prove your point you could fill me in?

Your point about the right, at least in both Hungary and Greece, doesn't work either. Jobbik have said time and time again they would not merge into a party and Fidesz don't want to anyway. Golden Dawn won't work with ND. So maybe you could try and prove your point.


I'd have more respect for the supposesly hard working left, if they actually spent their time trying to promote socialism instead of legislating liberal social policies. If communists are supposed to be so opposed to liberalism (as I am, and they rightfully should be), then why are their programs so closely allied?


Yeah champ, not the question I was asking. It in fact has nothing to do with it. Again, your assertion:


communism (or any sort of socialism for that matter)

You've just been proven wrong, at least on an electoral scale, on your assertion that fascism and the left are about the same size. I showed how you flatly contradicted yourself in this point, yet I've seen no response as yet (I await your furiously scripted response).

We haven't even gone onto strikes and local groups, which I mention here:


It's also interesting you seem to make no distinction between that of parties, local community movements or trader unions. Maybe if you stopped treating the left as some sort of mass you'd see there's stuff being done (maybe if you actually did some of it).

What do you know? You have chosen to ignore this part as well. Perhaps, and I am making an assusmption here, you are the same 'keyboard warrior' type you decry in your previous post, and probably no little of the advances made by the trade union movement (either in the US, US, Europe, not to mention the Middle East etc), and probably are not part of any community group which socialists should be supporting.

Also, by the way, if you're going to come out with this:

If communists are supposed to be so opposed to liberalism (as I am, and they rightfully should be), then why are their programs so closely allied?

you should probably have some sort of examples to prove your point. Now I don't know if you're a troll or you're just really, really bad at having an argument, but it's best if you actually illustrate what you're saying rather than pulling some sort of generalised question out of thin air (which you've just done).

EDIT: Interesting to note that Vireya saw this post and is now mysteriously offline.

[papito]

I read the OP and a bit of the thread, couldn't be bothered to read it all if I'm honest.

Freedom of speech is definitely one thing that keeps your numbers down. I get that you wish to preserve this corner of the internet for leftists and I understand the logic - don't dilute it to a point where every type of ideological comes for an argument.

However, in my humble opinion, you need to win over the middle of the road pussies like me who aren't 'extremist' or actively political. It's the same for the right wingers too, the message from the left generally translates as "you don't understand, we know the way and can impose it" . The message from the right on the other hand is "it is all the fault of x - get rid of them and you're golden" .

Which do you think sounds more pallitable?

[Sam_b]

However, in my humble opinion, you need to win over the middle of the road pussies like me who aren't 'extremist' or actively political

Please do not use prejudiced language on this forum. This constitutes a verbal warning.

[papito]

Please do not use prejudiced language on this forum. This constitutes a verbal warning.
Exactly

[RedBen]

i saw this baiting stunt coming, just didn't know when. i haven't been on here very long but i really don't care about stormfront... like at all. i don't wake up in a cold sweat in the night pondering how many people join stormfront. i think the left is rising in the world, even here in the states, and i don't think that site or this one's membership reflect political trends accurately.

[Sam_b]

Exactly

It would also be nice to not make one-word posts in threads that don't contribute anything. Not that I know what the point of saying 'exactly' is anyway.

[Alan OldStudent]

Thank you for the unsolicited advise :lol:, I hope you don't blame us if we take it with a grain of salt considering that you don't support working class self-emancipation anyway and seem to hold a straw-man view of our politics.
I was unable to find the button to add thanks for this post, so I'm making a brief reply to say thanks to you, Comrade Jimmie.

I'm quite new to this forum and have heard a lot about banning. I haven't been here long enough to see it or form an opinion of it. I also have many disagreements with some of the comrades who post here. But I have noticed those who have debated my differences have treated me with respect, and I appreciate that. That includes the restricted people.

Regards,
Alan OldStudent
The unexamined life is not worth living -- Socrates

[Popular Front of Judea]

What the fuck does that have to do with anything? Check your middle-class snobbery brother.


I bet everyone on StormFront is some fat redneck who smokes cigarettes all day.

[Popular Front of Judea]

Chill it with the 'pussy' talk okay Papito? I don't want to see your exploitive ass banned from here. ;) Yeah lefties can go overboard on the speech policing thing. But humor them okay? If you can get by without saying 'c*nt' -- like you Brits are fond of doing -- then you can get by without saying pussy.


Please do not use prejudiced language on this forum. This constitutes a verbal warning.

[papito]

It would also be nice to not make one-word posts in threads that don't contribute anything. Not that I know what the point of saying 'exactly' is anyway.

Sometimes I find that one word is exactly enough, occasionally it's one too many.

I am happy to explain myself if you would like me to, as you yourself have said you do not know the point of 'exactly'

[Sam_b]

Sometimes I find that one word is exactly enough,

You find it exactly enough. The board rules disagree. So here's me asking nicely not to do it in future.

Maybe you find one word is enough, but then again you're not reading it from the other side. I'm asking what the word 'exactly' has to do with the fact I gave you a warning not to break the rules.

Also, People's Front of Judea, I see absolutely no reason as to why you're either a) pretty much repeating what I said, or b) believe that:


lefties can go overboard on the speech policing thing

I don't see why you or anyone else would find sexist, ableist, homophobic, racist etc etc speech to be acceptable and somehow it can be done 'overboard'. I suggest you check your priorities.

Now, if we could keep this back on topic it would be swell.

[Popular Front of Judea]

No I do not condone discriminatory speech. I do not engage in it myself. (Well I have been lectured on my fondness for the word 'clusterfuck'. Hopefully I will be indulged here.) But I do believe we do need to meet working people where they are, not where we wish them to be. The left needs to leave its sandbox.


You find it exactly enough. The board rules disagree. So here's me asking nicely not to do it in future.

Maybe you find one word is enough, but then again you're not reading it from the other side. I'm asking what the word 'exactly' has to do with the fact I gave you a warning not to break the rules.

Also, People's Front of Judea, I see absolutely no reason as to why you're either a) pretty much repeating what I said, or b) believe that:



I don't see why you or anyone else would find sexist, ableist, homophobic, racist etc etc speech to be acceptable and somehow it can be done 'overboard'. I suggest you check your priorities.

Now, if we could keep this back on topic it would be swell.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

But I do believe we do need to meet working people where they are, not where we wish them to be. The left needs to leave its sandbox.

Ergo, what?

[Sam_b]

That sounds like just another way of saying you'll tolerate people being bigoted.

It is however, nothing to do with my point about prejudiced language in the forum, so I have no idea why you felt the need to come in and try and police the forum after I took appropriate action. There was no need for a caveat on it as it was dealt with, if I felt the need to say anything you did I would have done so myself.

[papito]

. I'm asking what the word 'exactly' has to do with the fact I gave you a warning not to break the rules.



Well seeing as you ask.

I made a point that the mods on this point were too quick to censure.

I used the word pussies (like me)

You gave me a verbal warning, highlighting the above word.

I think that proved my point about being too quick to censor.

I said 'exactly'

You have given me a verbal warning for using a word, I really do not know what the problem is with that word. I respectfully would ask you to explain how I have earned this verbal warning.

[papito]

Edit the above - my point wasn't about mods, rather leftists stamping down on any freedom of speech. I've had a drink, I can do better.

[papito]

Hang on, just realised it was me you accused of using 'prejudiced' language. I will be more specific - please tell me, how have I used prejudiced language?

[Sam_b]

I made a point that the mods on this point were too quick to censure.

I used the word pussies (like me)

You gave me a verbal warning, highlighting the above word.

I think that proved my point about being too quick to censor.


Wrong. When you sign up to Revleft on your own accord, which denotes acceptance to our rules (http://www.revleft.com/vb/faq.php?faq=general#faq_faqforumrules) it is not censure. You'll also notice that your current indulgence in one-liner posts, especially when you could have gone back to edit a post to put in your latest one; and your one word reply from earlier are also in breach of the rules.

As for the term 'pussy', it is against the rules as it is used in terms of gender role. Men are overwhelmingly referred to as 'pussies' for apparently not living up to their supposed masculinity and their gender traits. It's often used as a reference to a woman's genitalia, and in connection the 'weak' man is referred to as woman-like, which is supposedly a negative thing.

I could also care less about freedom of speech. Hopefully this matter is now closed and I ask users to stay on topic. I am not here to debate this. If you wish to challenge this I suggest you go to another moderator or admin, as subsequent replies on this are likely to be trashed.

[papito]

Ok. If there is a specific rule about that particular word then I apologise for breaking that rule. However in mitigation I would like to point out that the etymology of that word is from Latin, it means tiny spirit. It is also used as a shorter version of pussy cat, e.g
"that bloke is a right hard case"
"no he's not, he's a pussy cat"

[Sam_b]

The word 'retard' comes from Hippocrates in the fifth century BCE, who uses it to mean an imbalance of the brain. Frankly, it's irrelevant, as what it means in the here and now is far different.

A lot of words come from Latin. I don't particularly care, as it's used as an excuse for people to say whatever the hell they like. The idea you're using it as a shorter version of pussy cat is also scraping the barrel in the extreme.

I am not looking for a qualification, but you couldn't help yourself. As I clearly said this thread is no longer to be derailed, nor is it to debate the use of a word which violates board policy. I expect no reply to this post unless it is to discuss the topic of the thread. Anything else will be trashed and leads to the possibility of infractions etc.

[synthesis]

I was unable to find the button to add thanks for this post, so I'm making a brief reply to say thanks to you, Comrade Jimmie.

I'm quite new to this forum and have heard a lot about banning. I haven't been here long enough to see it or form an opinion of it. I also have many disagreements with some of the comrades who post here. But I have noticed those who have debated my differences have treated me with respect, and I appreciate that. That includes the restricted people.

My response to this and also every post in this thread complaining about people being banned for political differences is that it's pretty rare for people to be banned solely because of their politics, as long as they don't fall into the categories defined in the OI description. The most contested bans occur generally because people don't "fit in" socially or pissed too many people off because of personality issues, not political minutiae.

(Sam_b, this post has nothing to do with yours.)

[liberlict]

I think the main reason is because there are a lot of assholes in the world. More than sane people, sadly.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

It's because Stormfront is made up of anyone who's remotely racist towards black people. It's a much wider demographic than Revleft's intended audience.

There are people there who praise Ahmadinnejad, for heavens' sake.

[Vireya]

I'll even give you a head start here - Hungary and Greece (although we are aware that SYRIZA is larger). I can't think of any other state of the top of my head with a significantly established and elected fascist organisation running the show. I've given you a bunch of examples for the left, though. Maybe to try and prove your point you could fill me in?

Your point about the right, at least in both Hungary and Greece, doesn't work either. Jobbik have said time and time again they would not merge into a party and Fidesz don't want to anyway. Golden Dawn won't work with ND. So maybe you could try and prove your point.



Yeah champ, not the question I was asking. It in fact has nothing to do with it. Again, your assertion:



You've just been proven wrong, at least on an electoral scale, on your assertion that fascism and the left are about the same size. I showed how you flatly contradicted yourself in this point, yet I've seen no response as yet (I await your furiously scripted response).

We haven't even gone onto strikes and local groups, which I mention here:



What do you know? You have chosen to ignore this part as well. Perhaps, and I am making an assusmption here, you are the same 'keyboard warrior' type you decry in your previous post, and probably no little of the advances made by the trade union movement (either in the US, US, Europe, not to mention the Middle East etc), and probably are not part of any community group which socialists should be supporting.

Also, by the way, if you're going to come out with this:


you should probably have some sort of examples to prove your point. Now I don't know if you're a troll or you're just really, really bad at having an argument, but it's best if you actually illustrate what you're saying rather than pulling some sort of generalised question out of thin air (which you've just done).

EDIT: Interesting to note that Vireya saw this post and is now mysteriously offline.

Yeah...you totally missed the point I was making. I was talking about the fact that communism and fascism are both in basically the same boat as far as political relevance. I'm well aware of the commie parties in Europe and their size, but what have they done with it? When is the last time communists legislated in the direction of socialism?

Surely communism has a larger following than fascism at the moment, but it doesn't seem they are influential in any meaningful way. Hence, their numbers are essentially meaningless. You can get any idiot college student to be a commie, doesn't make your movement effective though.

I like how you condescendingly stated you were awaiting for my "furiously scripted response". What is there to be furious about? We're simply two socialists discussing socialism is comparison to "fascism" in the form of Stormfront. Chill out, I'm not here to antagonize you, even if I don't particularly like your views.

Also, I'd appreciate it if you didn't refer to me as a troll, I'm clearly not.

[RedBen]

You can get any idiot college student to be a commie
nice of you to shit on people getting an education

[Vireya]

nice of you to shit on people getting an education

How on Earth did you get that out of that statement? I was referring to how impressionable the youth are.

[Ace High]

The people on Stormfront are some of the most idiotic people I have ever seen. And I'm not saying that just because I disagree with their racist views. I recently made an account there and posted a series of questions in the Opposition section. Those people contradict themselves constantly, not to mention most of them are brain dead Christians who think that Jesus was white. That would be quite a miracle for a man living in the Middle East to have white skin and blue eyes!

My point being, they may have a large community, but it doesn't mean much if they are a bunch of dumb racist rednecks. Nobody will ever take them seriously, where as leftist politics actually has potential to appeal to people that are a-political. Hell, I used to be a conservative pro capitalist idiot before I started doing research and realized that my views were completely wrong. That is why we have potential. Racist white people on Stormfront are not going to appeal to anybody that has not been brainwashed by psychotic racist parents/guardians.

[RedBen]

i don't see how you guys can stomach that crap. i don't even go there for amusement. i happened across that page years ago and it makes my blood boil. i had all but forgotten about it... thanks guys:D i seen some stuff on free republic that was on par with stormfront.

[Sam_b]

I was talking about the fact that communism and fascism are both in basically the same boat as far as political relevance.

Nope, you didn't. What you said, and I quote you, is that:


communism (or any sort of socialism for that matter) are shunned just as much as nazism-fascism

I have demonstrated, with examples, that you are incorrect. Communist and socialist parties are being voted for by workers. Off the top of my head (because, unlike yourself, I like to be able to win arguments by providing actual examples) the Communist Party of Bohemia and Moravia came second in last year's regional elections and won two regions. Communists in Japan have made a breakthrough recently. Over a million people voted for Front de Gauche's presidential candidate. I don't need to tell you about SYRIZA in Greece. How are these groups being shunned? How are they being shunned as much as the fascists are?

See, saying something a little bit different as an attempt to deflect doesn't stop your argument being invalid. I didn't miss the point at all, I actually addressed it head-on. It's not the fact I 'missed the point', rather the point your making has absolutely no basis in reality. I even gave you some examples which could have backed up your assertion, using the experiences of Hungary and Greece!


I'm well aware of the commie parties in Europe and their size, but what have they done with it?

Well son, you see, that wasn't the point you made when you said that leftists were shunned. You're desperately trying to deflect because you can't back yourself up. Whether or not some parties have done anything was not the initial point of the post I made. Why? Because I also said this:


we have our movement and organisation on the streets, in communities, and in unions

Now, seeing as I've raised this point several times, and I quote from my previous engagement with you that; "you seem to make no distinction between that of parties, local community movements or trader unions. Maybe if you stopped treating the left as some sort of mass you'd see there's stuff being done (maybe if you actually did some of it)". I wonder why you've still not mentioned this at all? It's probably because that would require you to do some arduous tasks like:
a) googling to see what advances have been made
b) getting in contact with people that have been part of these groups and seeing the real and important work they're doing
c) requiring you to actually think before you put some contradictory/unsourced/badly-worded sentence down as some sort of "argument".

You seem really obsessed by parties and OH NO HOW THEY BEND TO THE LIBERALZZZ!!! without actually showing any evidence to support said claims or seeming to have any clue about how these parties operate.


When is the last time communists legislated in the direction of socialism?

How much legislation do socialists and communists usually get past while they're not in Government? What do you mean by "direction of socialism"? Are you trying to use a term so broad that when someone responds to you you hastily reply that it wasn't what you meant?


Surely communism has a larger following than fascism at the moment

You weren't so 'sure' yesterday when you said that the left was both "shunned" and that it isn't "somehow better off" (your words). Furiously backpeddaling already?


but it doesn't seem they are influential in any meaningful way

Again, it's not my fault you know fuck all about trade unions and local campaigns winning victories. Let's all note again that you've made this assertion without qualification of any terms whatsoever.


Hence, their numbers are essentially meaningless

Yet again you've contradicted yourself. Numbers would surely show that your assertion, that the left is "shunned", is not the case. It's also weird you would try and use this argument in a thread which is examining the size of the left vs Stormfront and so on.


You can get any idiot college student to be a commie, doesn't make your movement effective though.

But again it would show that your claim the left is "shunned" is a load of rubbish though.


We're simply two socialists discussing socialism is comparison to "fascism" in the form of Stormfront

At no point have you actually said anything based on a real line of argument or any hard evidence. This isn't a discussion, all you're doing is typing words out. Its like trying to have an argument with one of those dolls you pull the string on and it says something. It always says the same thing, just in a slightly different way, and doesn't seem to take on board or understand the slightest thing you tell it.

[Rafiq]

That would be quite a miracle for a man living in the Middle East to have white skin and blue eyes!


Actually, plenty of Middle Eastern people have pale white skin and blue eyes. At least in the levant. I, for example have colored eyes and pasty white skin and I'm not mixed.

[synthesis]

Actually, plenty of Middle Eastern people have pale white skin and blue eyes. At least in the levant. I, for example have colored eyes and pasty white skin and I'm not mixed.

Good point. He might have been thinking of this project:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-KleWyfDMf6c/TbXJpMrK7ZI/AAAAAAAAAZc/T4AzibqipYw/s400/08+-+RealJesus_jpeg.jpg

Which used forensic anthropology (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/health/forensics/1282186-2) to determine what Jesus probably looked like. I'd seen the picture before, but I'd never read the article, which is pretty interesting.

[the debater]

The people on Stormfront are some of the most idiotic people I have ever seen. And I'm not saying that just because I disagree with their racist views. I recently made an account there and posted a series of questions in the Opposition section.

What was your username? I had if I can recall correctly two threads that did not get approved, one in the OV subforum and one in the General Questions and Comments subforum. I eventually had to re-submit my OV thread as a post in Ian Vikingson's sticky, but unfortunately, I don't think a lot of WNs are visiting that section of the forum. When I finally registered an account, Ian banned me for exposing one of the members as a pottymouth. This was a person who was incredibly annoying mind you. Another laughable moment was when I tried to ask the American SFers how they were planning to take over large swaths of the U.S. They never gave me a straight answer, but I do recall Ian Vikingson saying he was hoping for no one to be killed, and that a WN semi-nation would be established peacefully. Perhaps David Duke could come up with a campaign slogan that would reflect the "peaceful" hopes of WNs.

David Duke in '16:

For peaceful expulsion and preserving the sanctity of life*



*as long as non-whites are willing to leave peacefully

[stefanbl]

There are few more places one can be a Far Leftists than a 'White Nationalist' or whatever, so inevitably they will be more concentrated where they are tolerated , in a manner the Far left doesn't have to be.

[liberlict]

what I find funny is the stormfront search is so big in the tag cloud.

http://prntscr.com/1kyys3

I don't know what that is about. There might be a lot stormfronters keeping a close eye on you? Or maybe it's something else.

[liberlict]

I'm white and from Pakistan (http://www.***************/forum/t738029/)


I don't know why Stormfront's members and white nationalists in general are being ignorant towards their brothers in Asia - the aryans... I am from Pakistan and completely white with dark blonde hair and hazel eyes. I also have a straight narrow nose. When I tell my friends at school that I'm from Pakistan I have trouble getting them to believe it... They didn't even know I was foreign until they heard my name.

I've seen this attitude especially amongst British white nationalists who are used to Punjabi brown Pakistani immigrants. I have seen alot of this kind of stereotyping from them.

Let me tell you all something, Pakistan is made up of 30% Pashtuns (search it if you don't know them), and at least 25% of Pashtuns are white skinned, and many also have blonde hair or blue eyes like myself. And Afghanistan is made up of even more Pashtuns.

No, I'm not saying all Pakistanis are white, and I'm not saying the brown Punjabis are white, I don't even care that I'm a Pakistani... All I'm saying is that Asia is home to many pure Aryans.

Here is Shahid Afridi, a Pakistani pashtun Cricket player with his two daughters:

http://archive.arabnews.com/2005/06/afridi29_.jpg


Now what about those two girls is not white? If they were older and went to school with you and had English names and acted the same as everyone else would you dare refute that they are white? Of course not.

I have exactly the same skin tone and hair colour as the girl on the left in this picture, as do many of my Aryan brothers and sisters. And I know this because I've seen it with my own eyes.

The only reason some Pashtuns are darker is because of the hot sun, especially in Pakistan but in Afghanistan too.

bahabaha

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

I'm white and from Pakistan (http://www.***************/forum/t738029/)



bahabaha
being a racist must be so boring and tedious! :laugh:

[4MyNation]

I have tons of pictures exposing SCUM-front members for the slime that they are. Too bad I can't post links or images.

It's larger because they use deception tactics, while we at Revleft (and related sites) do not.

Another reason why is because the general public is ignorant, everyone at StormFront is ignorant, so it adds up. :)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

It's larger because they use deception tactics, while we at Revleft (and related sites) do not.

Could you elaborate? Because they seem pretty open about being a bunch of racist dickbags. Of course some of them probably call themselves "racial realists" or some other nonsense, but anyone who isn't racist themselves can see right through such pathetic euphemisms.

[Popular Front of Judea]

I am curious as to why Stormfront is seen as the 'anti-Revleft' here as versus say the libertarian forum in Reddit? The only thing the posters in Stormfront share is their racism right? When it comes to political economy I would assume they are all over the map. What other connection could there be between a Neo-confederate and an admirer of Adolf Hitler?

[4MyNation]

I am curious as to why Stormfront is seen as the 'anti-Revleft' here as versus say the libertarian forum in Reddit? The only thing the posters in Stormfront share is their racism right? When it comes to political economy I would assume they are all over the map. What other connection could there be between a Neo-confederate and an admirer of Adolf Hitler?

Exactly, they can all come together and say "Damn I hate blacks and jews", but outside of racism they have too many differences between each other. Like in one thread about abortion (http://tinyurl.com/mn7cvvq) they pretty much had a civil war with each other! It's hilarious to see how easy they divide themselves, but white nationalism is an ideology based on division so go figure.

[servusmoderni]

He's not fascist. I'm a nationalist. Even Marx said nationalism was an important part of politics and he respected it. You should read Das Kapital where he clearly states the good sides about nationalism, borders, national identity and the good things it provides to the national economy. ;)

[4MyNation]

One thing that shocks me in particular are the self-hating non-whites who visit that site. Non-whites who have came across their fascist propoganda and fell for it, they were brainwashed to hate themselves. So they go to the site trying to pleade, which is foolish at best. Beeing a communist I believe in collaboration, and can ever forsake my fellow man or woman, regardless of skin color. I donate to charity whenever I can. I don't think the welfare/medicare system should be abused though.

WNs always say "Is there anything dumber than a anti-white white person". I would have to say yes, but what about say an anti-black black person? It's no different at all. No matter how much they sugar coat their intentions, WNs have no regard for non-white life at all. If I browse the forum right now I can find hundreds of post of them calling them demeaning names.

I would go to the forum and point out their flaws and what they need to improve on, but they are the enemy. I say just let the site collapse from within.

[Thirsty Crow]

He's not fascist. I'm a nationalist. Even Marx said nationalism was an important part of politics and he respected it. You should read Das Kapital where he clearly states the good sides about nationalism, borders, national identity and the good things it provides to the national economy. ;)

Would you be so kind and point me towards the pages containing such arguments?

[Lenina Rosenweg]

As Marx said, the ideas of the ruling class are the ruling ideas of society".In the US at least the radical left is tiny. In large areas of the US racism is deeply embedded in the culture.

Anyway nationalism is always reactionary. Of course leftists need to relate much differently to "white nationalists" than to nationalists from the "third world" but ultimately nationalism is always a bourgeois or petit bourgeois ideology.

[Bolshevik Sickle]

The people on Stormfront are some of the most idiotic people I have ever seen. And I'm not saying that just because I disagree with their racist views. I recently made an account there and posted a series of questions in the Opposition section. Those people contradict themselves constantly, not to mention most of them are brain dead Christians who think that Jesus was white. That would be quite a miracle for a man living in the Middle East to have white skin and blue eyes!

My point being, they may have a large community, but it doesn't mean much if they are a bunch of dumb racist rednecks. Nobody will ever take them seriously, where as leftist politics actually has potential to appeal to people that are a-political. Hell, I used to be a conservative pro capitalist idiot before I started doing research and realized that my views were completely wrong. That is why we have potential. Racist white people on Stormfront are not going to appeal to anybody that has not been brainwashed by psychotic racist parents/guardians.

They contradict themselves alot! I tried arguing with them, I even pointe out the contradictions. They just resort to name-calling and bringing up "racial science" which are irrelevant to what I asked. Also it is true that it seems larger, but the banned/inactive accounts are listed as active users.

Another thing I noticed is they claim "Oh we don't hate people of other races", even though I can link to thousands of post that prove they do.

I could tell them they need to find a way to broaden their appeal, but why? Let them expose themselves for the hate-mongering/fear-mongering idiots they are!

Even though I'm no WN, if you look at other WS/WN websites or lurk /pol/, you will see even they see StormFront as a joke.

SF is the lowest of the low, period.

[Marxaveli]

He's not fascist. I'm a nationalist. Even Marx said nationalism was an important part of politics and he respected it. You should read Das Kapital where he clearly states the good sides about nationalism, borders, national identity and the good things it provides to the national economy. ;)

Keep in mind, Das Kapital is a critique of capitalism. Marx didn't respect nationalism, he was merely stating its importance as a bourgeois ideology that was important for maintaining or bolstering capitalist social relations.

Marx's REAL views of nationalism are seen in The Manifesto, where he states "the working men have no country". To think for even a minute that Marx respected or thought nationalism was a good thing is plain silly, and nationalism by default is incompatible with socialism.

[Palmares]

Reviving dead threads, especially by fash trolls, isn't allowed on my watch.