Before I go on...am I still considered a "fascist"?

[Ironfront]

I've been lurking around this...rather interesting site for some time. I would like to post a bit but first I must know this: am I "still" considered a "fascist"?

I am a evolutionary socialist, former hardcore revolutionary who believed in violent overthrow of the state, capitalism blah blah blah...and then I grew up and matured. I realized my youthful idiocy was just hormone driven rebellion and emotion based. But the problem with our sick capitalist society remains: too few have too much and too many have too little.

I believe in a world wide movement of workers to contain capitalism, centered on the third world where most of the big time exploitation happens. To put it simply, the world is a plantation, we in the first world are the house slaves and the workers in the third world are the field slaves. Real rebellion only usually happens when it starts with the field slaves as the house slaves are too cuddly with the masters and too "well treated" to be truly revolutionary. I think such a movement would force the ruling classes to concede and be beaten back.

BUT, I do not believe that they should be destroyed. The capitalist mode of production is indeed efficient and, if controlled by a worker's run republic, as opposed to the bourgeois democracy of today, it can be moved in a proper direction. As the years go by and humanity evolves, the capitalist system can be beaten back further until it is gone. A slow steady erosion of the ruling class...an evolution, as opposed to a revolution.

But, many of you think that because I believe that violent overthrow is neither possible nor really desirable, I am considered a "social fascist."

So, for the purpose of this board, am I considered a "fascist" and hence forth "banned"?

[liberlict]

You just have to get over it man. If your agenda has any kind of focus on national, racial or cultural preservation, you are considered a fascist by the rev. left. It's just how it is.

[GPDP]

You sound like a social-democrat, not a fascist. "Social-fascism" was a slur given to social-democrats by Stalinists long ago, but they aren't actual fascists in the sense of classical Fascism, Nazism, etc. So at worst you will be restricted, but not banned, unless you demonstrate racist, sexist, homophobic, or transphobic views.

Also, many of us do not desire violence. I am a peaceful person who doesn't want trouble with anyone, but I know when I'm being taken advantage of, and as a worker, I want what is best for me and my fellow workers, and I believe capitalism is not it. It's not a question of wanting to violently overthrow it, it's that at this rate, either it catastrophically collapses and takes all of us down with it, or we replace it with something better, but those who maintain an interest in keeping capitalism around will not let it go willingly. That is why revolutionary socialists say a revolution is necessary, and why it will most likely be violent on some front.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Perhaps there is something to be said for the notion of social-fascism, though. Fascism is bourgeois Bonapartism that relies on declassed layers of the proletariat and on the petite bourgeoisie against the labour movement. In effect, it mobilises the lower strata to fight against their own interest and for the interest of imperial and finance capital. Social democracy does the same, though usually not in the context of a Bonapartist dictatorship. Though even this might change, with the hysterical imperialist imposition of pro-austerity regimes.

[Marxaveli]

I am a evolutionary socialist, former hardcore revolutionary who believed in violent overthrow of the state, capitalism blah blah blah...and then I grew up and matured.


No, you simply began to believe all the bourgeois propaganda fed to you, and now you buy the whole line "capitalism is the best we can do, we can just make it more fair". You had it right when you were a revolutionary, sorry man.


I realized my youthful idiocy was just hormone driven rebellion and emotion based. But the problem with our sick capitalist society remains: too few have too much and too many have too little.

"Youthful idiocy"?? This in itself is very ageist and reactionary, as if younger people have no rationality. Also, many comrades here are in their 20's and 30's (im in my 30's), so it has nothing to do with "hormone driven rebellion". It has everything to do with applying a materialist analysis to capitalism's history and its processes, and the logical conclusion based on this is that capitalism must be overthrown. Reforms only serve to strengthen the capitalist state most of the time (yes, I am an Impossiblist, sort of), besides, they can always be cut back later on, which is seen perfectly with all the continued policies of austerity we see nowadays.


I believe in a world wide movement of workers to contain capitalism, centered on the third world where most of the big time exploitation happens. To put it simply, the world is a plantation, we in the first world are the house slaves and the workers in the third world are the field slaves. Real rebellion only usually happens when it starts with the field slaves as the house slaves are too cuddly with the masters and too "well treated" to be truly revolutionary. I think such a movement would force the ruling classes to concede and be beaten back.

We dont want to contain capitalism, we want to destroy it entirely. It is scientifically impossible for capitalism to be reformed in favor of the workers - it is a exploitative system based on private ownership, and the only goal is the maximization of profit and the expansion of markets across the globe. How can this, which is diametrically opposed to the interests of working class people, be changed when it goes against the economic and social laws of capitalism?


BUT, I do not believe that they should be destroyed. The capitalist mode of production is indeed efficient and, if controlled by a worker's run republic, as opposed to the bourgeois democracy of today, it can be moved in a proper direction. As the years go by and humanity evolves, the capitalist system can be beaten back further until it is gone. A slow steady erosion of the ruling class...an evolution, as opposed to a revolution.

It is anything but efficient - The US government alone has billions of dollars of old military technology that it never even used. You call that efficient? Capitalism is HUGE waste of resources and it is very destructive on the planet. A "workers run republic" cannot exist under a capitalist mode of production - materially impossible. If your evolution were at all realistic, we would be living under socialism by now, but we aren't. Politics is a operation of power, and those who have power never just give it up. They have to be forcefully overthrown.


But, many of you think that because I believe that violent overthrow is neither possible nor really desirable, I am considered a "social fascist."

Fascist no. You are what Marx would call a 'utopian socialist'. Your aims are noble, but again unrealistic. All previous modes of production resulted in either the complete social and economic decay of those systems or the revolutionary overthrow of them - why would capitalism be any different? Sure, capitalism has features in it that make it unique compared to other oppressive systems, but it requires revolution no less than any other class antagonist based society to bring about its destruction.

[Comrade #138672]

You sound like a Reformist to me.

We have tried Reformism for a while now. The problem is that with Reformism the bourgeoisie stays in power. Every reform can only be implemented if the bourgeoisie accepts it -- for the time being that is. Eventually, when a crisis happens, all reforms are quickly withdrawn. This is exactly what has been happening for the last few decades. This shows that the proletariat is not in control as long as Capitalism still exists. There is no evolution or progress if every reform can be rolled back later on.

That is why we must destroy Capitalism in its entirety. Only then can the workers really be in control. So yes, a revolution is necessary.

Have fun with Bernstein, though.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I'm intrigued, how are you arriving, OP, at the conclusion that capitalism is 'efficient'? I'd say that, of all the arguments in support of capitalism, that is a rather weak one, not really supported empirically in a wide variety of industries/markets (e.g. energy, housing, labour markets); indeed, it's only claim to 'success' is that it is less inefficient than the former 'Socialist' states, but that's not really any sort of argument that capitalism is efficient, just that the other capitalism of the 20th century was equally as inefficient in producing and distributing scarce resources, and in producing socially positive and desirable outcomes.

[Nevsky]

BUT, I do not believe that they should be destroyed. The capitalist mode of production is indeed efficient and, if controlled by a worker's run republic, as opposed to the bourgeois democracy of today, it can be moved in a proper direction.

First of all I don't think that you should be banned or restricted judging from your post here. The idea of mixing workers republic with capitalist economy seems a little strange to me, though. One does not simply take one major element from a societal model and merge it with an entirely different model. You can not take away the "efficient capitalism" from western democracies and use it for the worker's republic. Liberal-capitalism is only possible as a part of liberal democracy, the politics, economy and ruling idealogy form a unity. Marxism is opposed to the liberal parliamentary democracy as it is the political manifestation of capitalist economy. Revolutionary marxism destroys capitalism. Thus, the worker's republic emerges as a political force. Worker's republic with capitalism would be paradox.

[Per Levy]

BUT, I do not believe that they should be destroyed. The capitalist mode of production is indeed efficient and, if controlled by a worker's run republic, as opposed to the bourgeois democracy of today, it can be moved in a proper direction. As the years go by and humanity evolves, the capitalist system can be beaten back further until it is gone.

see here i have a problem, you want that capitalism still reigns even if the workers should take power, wich is weird, why would i want to still be exploited when im in power? but what you dont realize is this, capitalism can adapt very well to most situations when it comes to its survival. what you propose would end up in this, a part of the workers will become cappies while the rest will be workers as before, only then their exploitation will be labed as their rule. and capitalism will go on as before.


A slow steady erosion of the ruling class...an evolution, as opposed to a revolution.

if "evolution" would work we wouldnt have capitalism today, you see capitalism is now stronger and more fierce then ever before the evolution the social dems dreamed of is an illusion. therefore "revolution not evolution"


So, for the purpose of this board, am I considered a "fascist" and hence forth "banned"?

na you're a social democrat and with that you want workers to be exploited and be powerless, but with sugar to swallow all that a bit better.

[Ironfront]

You sound like a Reformist to me.

We have tried Reformism for a while now. The problem is that with Reformism the bourgeoisie stays in power. Every reform can only be implemented if the bourgeoisie accepts it -- for the time being that is. Eventually, when a crisis happens, all reforms are quickly withdrawn. This is exactly what has been happening for the last few decades. This shows that the proletariat is not in control as long as Capitalism still exists. There is no evolution or progress if every reform can be rolled back later on.

Revolution is one great big reform that is usually rolled back the moment it happens. For example, Russia went from one bourgeoisie democracy to another following the revolution, the only difference was the master waved a red flag. But still, workers were oppressed and the means or production were owned by a few.



That is why we must destroy Capitalism in its entirety. Only then can the workers really be in control. So yes, a revolution is necessary.

Capitalism is a cancer, and cancer is usually destroyed today through Chemotherapy, not slicing someone's brain up and yanking it out. It will die slowly, slow enough to insure that a handful of elitist "comrades" (like many on this board) don't become the new ruling class.

[Ironfront]

see here i have a problem, you want that capitalism still reigns even if the workers should take power, wich is weird, why would i want to still be exploited when im in power?


A man puts a gun to the head of an airplane pilot and has him fly the plane because he doesn't know how to fly it himself...who is in charge, the pilot or the man with the gun?

The workers establish a true Democratic Republic and force the capitalists production to suite their needs...who is in charge, the Republic or the capitalists being controlled by it?




but what you dont realize is this, capitalism can adapt very well to most situations when it comes to its survival. what you propose would end up in this, a part of the workers will become cappies while the rest will be workers as before, only then their exploitation will be labed as their rule. and capitalism will go on as before.

The easiest situation for capitalists to survive is a revolution. They will just become "revolutionaries" and set up a state capitalist society, just like Lenin did.




if "evolution" would work we wouldnt have capitalism today, you see capitalism is now stronger and more fierce then ever before the evolution the social dems dreamed of is an illusion. therefore "revolution not evolution"

That's because the evolutionaries got soft. They focused so much on Western Europe that they forgot to be international. The capitalist class just moved their exploitation to underdeveloped countries. Which is why if evolutionary socialism is to have any success it has to be international in its scope.




na you're a social democrat and with that you want workers to be exploited and be powerless, but with sugar to swallow all that a bit better.


Holding control of government is hardly "powerlessness". Revolution only leads to a new ruling class, as was the case in Spain, Russia etc.

[GeordiErnesto]

Unless the tumour is life threatening in which case it is removed

(actually don't know that much about cancer treatments, just thought id engage with the metaphor)

[Ironfront]

I'm intrigued, how are you arriving, OP, at the conclusion that capitalism is 'efficient'? I'd say that, of all the arguments in support of capitalism, that is a rather weak one, not really supported empirically in a wide variety of industries/markets (e.g. energy, housing, labour markets); indeed, it's only claim to 'success' is that it is less inefficient than the former 'Socialist' states, but that's not really any sort of argument that capitalism is efficient, just that the other capitalism of the 20th century was equally as inefficient in producing and distributing scarce resources, and in producing socially positive and desirable outcomes.

Compare capitalist modes of production to none capitalist ones...and you see the issue.

"Capitalism" is a larger term, I am talking about specifically the capitalist mode of production, which is indeed efficient, creates innovation etc. The mode of distribution however is far from it.

[Comrade #138672]

Revolution is one great big reform that is usually rolled back the moment it happens.I disagree. To me a reform is a concession of the bourgeoisie, implying that the bourgeoisie is still in power and that we are still under Capitalism. How are concessions of the bourgeoisie going to destroy Capitalism? If it is the bourgeoisie making the concessions, then will they just hand over their power like that?

A revolution is different, because it transcends all reforms. It overthrows the old ruling class and replaces it with a new ruling class. This changes all social relationships.


For example, Russia went from one bourgeoisie democracy to another following the revolution, the only difference was the master waved a red flag. But still, workers were oppressed and the means or production were owned by a few. Yes, if you are just going to skip over a major part of history, then it might seem like that is the case. I believe there was a revolution, but that it had been defeated by Capitalism and Imperialism.


Capitalism is a cancer, and cancer is usually destroyed today through Chemotherapy, not slicing someone's brain up and yanking it out. It will die slowly, slow enough to insure that a handful of elitist "comrades" (like many on this board) don't become the new ruling class.Actually, we do want a new ruling class, namely the proletariat. Why is this different? Because the proletariat as a ruling class, in contrast to every other ruling class in history, can not exploit another class, because that would have to a working class, which the proletariat already is. Classes can not exploit themselves.

The State exists to impose the rule of one class (the ruling class) on other classes. At first, the proletariat will have to impose its rule on the bourgeoisie, but this "oppression" can never last. When the bourgeoisie can not exploit the proletariat anymore, then they will cease to exist as a class, and because of that, the proletariat will cease to exist as well. When this happens, we have a classless society without the "need" for a State, which would make the State automatically "wither away".

Let's see how Reformism accomplishes this.

[#FF0000]

The workers establish a true Democratic Republic and force the capitalists production to suite their needs...who is in charge, the Republic or the capitalists being controlled by it?

Who runs the businesses isn't the trouble. The everyday functioning of capitalism is itself exploitative, and given its nature and tendencies, I'd say it would be impossible to run it "for the workers". And I'm curious as to how capitalism is "efficient"? We're talking about a system in which overproduction will cause a crisis, here.


Holding control of government is hardly "powerlessness". Revolution only leads to a new ruling class, as was the case in Spain, Russia etc.

A government still implies a class system, though, so there would still be a ruling class -- one of managers and bureaucrats.

[Althusser]

Maoist third-worldist social-democrat lol

I don't understand. If the workers of the first world aren't revolutionary, and the third world people are... how would the worker's republic be built here? Also what is meant by Worker's republic, as opposed to bourgeois democracy (that wouldn't require a revolution to set-up)

[Bardo]

...and then I grew up and matured. I realized my youthful idiocy was just hormone driven rebellion and emotion based.

Condescension isn't a good way to open a thread.

The remedy to capitalism isn't to ask it to be nice. Asking for reforms is a dead end, the real historical slaves in your analogy didn't free themselves by asking to be freed. They were freed by force. Capitalists give concessions in order to keep control, not to hand it over.

[Skyhilist]

Based on your initial statements alone you don't seem to be a fascist although you're definitely not a revolutionary leftist judging by those statements either. Perhaps more importantly though, why is there a swastika in your profile picture?

[DDR]

Based on your initial statements alone you don't seem to be a fascist although you're definitely not a revolutionary leftist judging by those statements either. Perhaps more importantly though, why is there a swastika in your profile picture?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Front

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Front

That shit is anti-communist! What the hell!?

[Luís Henrique]

why is there a swastika in your profile picture?

That's an electoral poster for the Social Democrats in 1932. The swastika is there because it is among the things the SDs were promising to oppose.

Here is a bigger version:

http://www.fes.de/archiv/adsd_neu/inhalt/downloads/img/weimar/plakat/ka003265.jpg

Gegen (ie, against) Papen, Hitler, Thaelmann, vote list #2, Socialdemocratic.

Luís Henrique

[ВАЛТЕР]

You're not a fascist, you're just Soc Dem scum. You may have "grown out" of your "revolutionary phase", but you just grew into a naive, reformist phase. You'd be better off on Democratic Underground, or some other shitty liberal site. I'm sure they'll take very kindly to you.

[Ironfront]

That's an electoral poster for the Social Democrats in 1932. The swastika is there because it is among the things the SDs were promising to oppose.

Here is a bigger version:


Gegen (ie, against) Papen, Hitler, Thaelmann, vote list #2, Socialdemocratic.

Luís Henrique

Indeed it is. The good old "anti-fascist circle" that so many "revolutionaries" love to use is actually anti-fascist...and anti-communist. So please, stop using a social-democrat symbol while preaching against social-democracy.

And I would note that Thalmann was a Stalinist who was just as bad as Hitler. If he was aligned with Tito...okay, he was pretty cool, I admit.

[Ironfront]

You're not a fascist, you're just Soc Dem scum. You may have "grown out" of your "revolutionary phase", but you just grew into a naive, reformist phase. You'd be better off on Democratic Underground, or some other shitty liberal site. I'm sure they'll take very kindly to you.

Why can't "revolutionaries" understand that there is something besides "revolutionaries" and "liberals"?

I hate "liberalism" in America and find them to be spineless fools. Obama is a corporate tool, as are 95% of the elected Democrats. I am not "reformist" as much as I am gradualist, meaning we need to gradually work towards social justice, then socialism and, eventually, a stateless, classless society. If you really think we can get there as a civilization in this generation you are much more naive than I could ever hope to be.

[Ironfront]

Based on your initial statements alone you don't seem to be a fascist although you're definitely not a revolutionary leftist judging by those statements either. Perhaps more importantly though, why is there a swastika in your profile picture?


The swastika is being struck down, as is the monarchist crown and the hammer and sickle.
I wish social-democrats could once again GROW A PAIR and get to the work of building worker's republics, putting the bosses in their place and building a better world...by any means necessary (but no means unnecessary)

I am fine with people using violence if they have no choice, but to go ahead and just start throwing things at the police for the hell of it is idiotic.

[Comrade #138672]

Ironfront, you are not principally opposed to revolution, right? It is just that you think gradualism may work better.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

Why can't "revolutionaries" understand that there is something besides "revolutionaries" and "liberals"?


You DO realise that you're on the "home of the revolutionairy left" don't you?

Social democracy is per definition NOT revolutionairy, nor is it gonna abolish capitalism. But you'll soon find out. Keep reading the theories!

[Marxaveli]

Why can't "revolutionaries" understand that there is something besides "revolutionaries" and "liberals"?

I hate "liberalism" in America and find them to be spineless fools. Obama is a corporate tool, as are 95% of the elected Democrats. I am not "reformist" as much as I am gradualist, meaning we need to gradually work towards social justice, then socialism and, eventually, a stateless, classless society. If you really think we can get there as a civilization in this generation you are much more naive than I could ever hope to be.

And how is it scientifically possible to "gradually" achieve socialism, when the state by default is a instrument designed to protect private property rights? Surely such rationale would require reforms at some point, which ultimately makes you a reformist. Can you give me a legitimate scientific explanation on how such a path can lead to socialism?

We aren't revolutionaries for the hell of it. We are revolutionaries because the 'laws of motion' that are inherent to capitalism, and its corresponding institutions and culture make 'gradual reform' to socialism materially impossible. You cannot reform the state apparatus and then expect it, as well as classes, to just disappear one day. It's not gonna happen. That is utopian/wishful thinking.

[Ironfront]

Ironfront, you are not principally opposed to revolution, right? It is just that you think gradualism may work better.

Let's look at things seriously: we have been taught materialism, consumerism and profit from the day we were born. Do you really think this generation is ready for true communism? If not, than what is the option?

Just as most humans now find slavery disgusting while three hundred years ago they found it normal, in three hundred years we (hopefully) will evolve as a people to understand that working for profit is less noble than working for the common good. But that is not today. In the mean time we can work for social justice and gradually evolve our government and system in line with out collective conscious.

And no, I am, not against revolution per se. I just think that in America and the developed world revolution should be mostly non-violent. Look at the Civil Rights Movement: it was mostly non-violent with the help of some armed factions like the Deacons for Defense and the Black Panthers. Likewise the worker's movement should be mostly non-violent while keeping an armed struggle as a backup to be used in defense of the individuals and the movement as a whole.

[Ironfront]

And how is it scientifically possible to "gradually" achieve socialism, when the state by default is a instrument designed to protect private property rights? Surely such rationale would require reforms at some point, which ultimately makes you a reformist. Can you give me a legitimate scientific explanation on how such a path can lead to socialism?

By working incrementally to get there. Over the generations capitalism will erode as it is taken apart by the worker's armed with a republic.



We aren't revolutionaries for the hell of it. We are revolutionaries because the 'laws of motion' that are inherent to capitalism, and its corresponding institutions and culture make 'gradual reform' to socialism materially impossible. You cannot reform the state apparatus and then expect it, as well as classes, to just disappear one day. It's not gonna happen. That is utopian/wishful thinking.

Wishful thinking is the concept that revolution will create anything other than state capitalism. In the fog of revolution, truly evil men tend to take power, as history has proven.

[Bardo]

I am not "reformist" as much as I am gradualist, meaning we need to gradually work towards social justice, then socialism and, eventually, a stateless, classless society.

What exactly is the difference here? How do "gradualists" go about gradually working towards social justice and socialism without doing so via a series of reforms through the existing institutions?

What you're describing is reformism, by definition.

[WelcomeToTheParty]

Ignoring the question of whether an overthrow of an entire order is possible gradually, is it right that you should ask people to wait? Perhaps you come from somewhere that doesn't put you face to face with Capitalism's victims, but people suffer and die because of it.

[barbelo]

You just have to get over it man. If your agenda has any kind of focus on national, racial or cultural preservation, you are considered a fascist by the rev. left. It's just how it is.

So palestinians supporters are fascists?

[Marxaveli]

By working incrementally to get there. Over the generations capitalism will erode as it is taken apart by the worker's armed with a republic.

Yea, even if that was possible, we don't want to wait another 300 years for revolution to be possible. The very thought of my fellow workers being oppressed for another 300 years makes me want to barf. Hell, by that time, capitalism would probably have degenerated into something much worse, to the point where revolution was no longer even possible. Do you want socialism or barbarism?




Wishful thinking is the concept that revolution will create anything other than state capitalism. In the fog of revolution, truly evil men tend to take power, as history has proven.

You are thinking in terms of a vanguard revolution. Also, im hesitant to throw around emotive words like "evil" so easily. There have been evil men in history. But as Marx once said, men make history, but not as they wish - they are constrained by the material realities in which they live (that wasn't the exact quote but its more or less what he said). Revolutions all have their own unique circumstances, and to paint them all with a broad brush as saying they can only result in state capitalism is overly deterministic (not to mention anti-Marxist) and in many ways disrespectful to those in the past who genuinely fought for a better future for us (whether they came up short or not is beside my point), and doesn't provide a scientific understanding of past revolutions so we do not make the same errors in future revolutions. That is after all, why we are here. Not all aspects of a revolution need be violent, though there will inevitably be violence at some point, at different levels across time and space. Just how it is though man. But I'd rather have the violence of a revolution, than continue to live under the violence we have now for who knows how many more years (centuries?), which would surely ended up being much more violent in the long run anyway.

[Ironfront]

What exactly is the difference here? How do "gradualists" go about gradually working towards social justice and socialism without doing so via a series of reforms through the existing institutions?

What you're describing is reformism, by definition.


"Reformism" is the belief that "reform" is the ends, "evolutionary" is the belief that any reform is simple a mean to a much greater end.

And who said "existing institutions"? The current system of government has to be done away with, and in the end, years down the road, capitalism itself must end. The question is what is the most realistic way of doing so?

A man who crawls into a fortress to plant a bomb is not a "reformist" because he refuses to stand outside the fortress throwing rocks in the hope of destroying it. He is in fact a realist.

[Ironfront]

Ignoring the question of whether an overthrow of an entire order is possible gradually, is it right that you should ask people to wait? Perhaps you come from somewhere that doesn't put you face to face with Capitalism's victims, but people suffer and die because of it.

I am saying the workers should move now. Historically, it has always been the "Revolutionaries" saying to "wait" as they embrace the old "worse is better" fallacy. For them, its either armies hitting the streets with guns or nothing. For evolutionaries, it is not a matter of waiting for a revolution that has been "brewing" in the mind of coffee house beatniks for 70 years but is about going out there and doing something.

For example: in New York state a bunch of domestic workers with the help of evolutionaries fought and won a domestic worker's bill of Rights. They now are given days off, overtime, and are treated like human beings. Small? Yes. Enough? Hell no. But it is SOMETHING TANGIBLE IN THE HERE AND NOW.

The "revolutionaries" would just shrug and say let the domestic workers suffer, let them be oppressed so that they will be pushed closer towards global overthrow of the state armed with nothing but rocks and sticks...

Or look at cannabis reform in Washington and Colorado. One vote and all people with pending misnomers for cannabis in Washington had their cases dropped. One vote in one election and the people did more through evolution to liberate themselves from the prison industrial complex than the last twenty years of "revolution" combined.

"Revolutionaires" remind me of a 90 pound nerd who would make fun of me in high school for bench pressing only a little over a hundred pounds. For all his talk, he never bench pressed anything. Yell "reformist" "fascist" "statist" etc all you want, but at least we're actually doing something besides wanking off to nearly a century old bolshevik propaganda or dressing up in hoodies and making douches of ourselves at rallies before getting thrown in jail and making our wealthy parents bail us out.

[Crux]

I've been lurking around this...rather interesting site for some time. I would like to post a bit but first I must know this: am I "still" considered a "fascist"?

I am a evolutionary socialist, former hardcore revolutionary who believed in violent overthrow of the state, capitalism blah blah blah...and then I grew up and matured. I realized my youthful idiocy was just hormone driven rebellion and emotion based. But the problem with our sick capitalist society remains: too few have too much and too many have too little.

I believe in a world wide movement of workers to contain capitalism, centered on the third world where most of the big time exploitation happens. To put it simply, the world is a plantation, we in the first world are the house slaves and the workers in the third world are the field slaves. Real rebellion only usually happens when it starts with the field slaves as the house slaves are too cuddly with the masters and too "well treated" to be truly revolutionary. I think such a movement would force the ruling classes to concede and be beaten back.

BUT, I do not believe that they should be destroyed. The capitalist mode of production is indeed efficient and, if controlled by a worker's run republic, as opposed to the bourgeois democracy of today, it can be moved in a proper direction. As the years go by and humanity evolves, the capitalist system can be beaten back further until it is gone. A slow steady erosion of the ruling class...an evolution, as opposed to a revolution.

But, many of you think that because I believe that violent overthrow is neither possible nor really desirable, I am considered a "social fascist."

So, for the purpose of this board, am I considered a "fascist" and hence forth "banned"?
If we had considered you a fascist you would be banned. I don't buy into the "social fascist" rhetoric myself, but who really speaks like that these days anyway? Just to explain forum policy: this forum is called RevLeft, meaning it is a forum for the revolutionary left. Self-identifying reformists are very welcome to discuss with us here in the OI though.

[Ironfront]

Yea, even if that was possible, we don't want to wait another 300 years for revolution to be possible. The very thought of my fellow workers being oppressed for another 300 years makes me want to barf. Hell, by that time, capitalism would probably have degenerated into something much worse, to the point where revolution was no longer even possible. Do you want socialism or barbarism?

Evolution is always possible.






You are thinking in terms of a vanguard revolution. Also, im hesitant to throw around emotive words like "evil" so easily. There have been evil men in history. But as Marx once said, men make history, but not as they wish - they are constrained by the material realities in which they live (that wasn't the exact quote but its more or less what he said). Revolutions all have their own unique circumstances, and to paint them all with a broad brush as saying they can only result in state capitalism is overly deterministic (not to mention anti-Marxist) and in many ways disrespectful to those in the past who genuinely fought for a better future for us (whether they came up short or not is beside my point),

No, it is the point. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Non-vanguard revolution, whether in Germany or Spain, always ends with the revolution being crushed by an organized force...that, and the whole "Red terror" thing that causes just as much horror as capitalism. Vanguard revolution leads to state capitalism. Evolutionary socialism leads to better conditions for the workers with the only major problem being complacency of the workers when they win some benefits, a problem that can be overcame threw internationalism.

Example: Worker's in Denmark and Luxemburg are better off because of their system that they've fought for than most other workers. The problem is that the capitalist will just look to places like the developing world for workers who are easier to oppress in sweat shops and the what not. The answer is for internationalism for the workers, making no place for the capitalist to hide.

In short: capital has gone global, now organized workers must do the same.

[WelcomeToTheParty]

I am saying the workers should move now. Historically, it has always been the "Revolutionaries" saying to "wait" as they embrace the old "worse is better" fallacy. For them, its either armies hitting the streets with guns or nothing. For evolutionaries, it is not a matter of waiting for a revolution that has been "brewing" in the mind of coffee house beatniks for 70 years but is about going out there and doing something.


Fighting for improved conditions and being a revolutionary are not mutually exclusive. Some tendencies believe they are, but I think that's nonsense and they help build class consciousness.

The question is whether you would support a socialist revolution if a majority of the workers supported it. Evolution as a word implies a lack of radical change and yet we know that capitalism is rotton to it's core and our only option is radical change. How in your mind would we evolve capitalism into socialism? And how do you justify the implied longer wait to the starving and dying?

[Bardo]

"Reformism" is the belief that "reform" is the ends, "evolutionary" is the belief that any reform is simple a mean to a much greater end.

This is what reformists say though. They believe they're on the road to socialism through democratic or parliamentary means. Rather than simple liberals, who view reforms as the means and the end, reformists view reforms as a means to advance socialism.


And who said "existing institutions"?

You did. In using a "gradual" approach to implementing "socialism" you're using the existing governmental body, the existing economic relationships, the existing social order to put through your demands.

Where as revolutionaries seize all of the above right away rather than using them as is, you're talking about using them to come into power and to your advantage afterwards.


A man who crawls into a fortress to plant a bomb is not a "reformist" because he refuses to stand outside the fortress throwing rocks in the hope of destroying it. He is in fact a realist.

No, he is a reformist if he runs for president of the fortress in order to put forth reforms that would "gradually" destroy it.

[Marxaveli]

Evolution is always possible.

lol, no it very clearly is not. The state will, by default, always act in the interests of the capitalists, whether it is temporary reforms to pacify the working class into accepting piece-meal reforms, or austerity cuts and direct coercion. You are using the same logic as reactionaries who call FDR a socialist, a man who did what he had to do to save capitalism.


No, it is the point. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Non-vanguard revolution, whether in Germany or Spain, always ends with the revolution being crushed by an organized force...that, and the whole "Red terror" thing that causes just as much horror as capitalism. Vanguard revolution leads to state capitalism. Evolutionary socialism leads to better conditions for the workers with the only major problem being complacency of the workers when they win some benefits, a problem that can be overcame threw internationalism.

You're damn right its insane, which is why workers need to stop voting for the same bourgeois politicians after 200 something years and start organizing themselves. The reason non-vanguard revolutions were crushed is cause the working class was not a point where it was strong enough, or at least aggressive enough, to destroy reactionary forces. But to assume it can never happen because it hasn't happened yet is an 'affirmation of the consequent' fallacy. It has nothing to do with revolutions being inherently unable to work or not.


Example: Worker's in Denmark and Luxemburg are better off because of their system that they've fought for than most other workers. The problem is that the capitalist will just look to places like the developing world for workers who are easier to oppress in sweat shops and the what not. The answer is for internationalism for the workers, making no place for the capitalist to hide.


Workers in the first world are better off because the capitalists of their nation exploit the resources of developing nations, so that workers in the rich countries maintain a higher standard of living. But, this works greatly for the capitalists, because 1.) they increase their profits with cheaper labor, and 2.) the workers in the first world are still highly repressed, but happy enough that they dont revolt, which of course, makes the capitalists smile, and smile, and smile......all the way to the bank. Literally.


In short: capital has gone global, now organized workers must do the same.

Yep, and that must be done through revolutionary means.

[rylasasin]

Yea, even if that was possible, we don't want to wait another 300 years for revolution to be possible. The very thought of my fellow workers being oppressed for another 300 years makes me want to barf. Hell, by that time, capitalism would probably have degenerated into something much worse, to the point where revolution was no longer even possible. Do you want socialism or barbarism?


And that's excluding things like environmental damage, which if things keep going on like this we'd be very lucky to last another 100.

[Ironfront]

lol, no it very clearly is not. The state will, by default, always act in the interests of the capitalists, whether it is temporary reforms to pacify the working class into accepting piece-meal reforms, or austerity cuts and direct coercion. You are using the same logic as reactionaries who call FDR a socialist, a man who did what he had to do to save capitalism.

As long as certain freedoms are retained (speech, assembly etc) evolution is possible...if they are taken away? Well, plan B: revolution. I am not against true revolution per se, just saying it is not likely in the first world.




You're damn right its insane, which is why workers need to stop voting for the same bourgeois politicians after 200 something years and start organizing themselves. The reason non-vanguard revolutions were crushed is cause the working class was not a point where it was strong enough, or at least aggressive enough, to destroy reactionary forces. But to assume it can never happen because it hasn't happened yet is an 'affirmation of the consequent' fallacy. It has nothing to do with revolutions being inherently unable to work or not.


I agree, which is why I hate 95% of elected officials in the USA. There are certain reforms however that will allow for wider change in America that can be pursued and would be more likely to work than any revolution. For example, nothing is stopping a state from adopting a parliamentary system for its legislature as opposed to winner-take-all elections. The result would be a socialist party that gains 8% of the vote taking 8% of the legislature and building from there. Difficult to pull off, but a lot easier that taking down...(inhales deeply)
The Army
The Navy
The Marines
The FBI
The CIA
The US Marshals
The police of every city and state
The Air Force
The armed counter-revolutionary populace.




Workers in the first world are better off because the capitalists of their nation exploit the resources of developing nations, so that workers in the rich countries maintain a higher standard of living. But, this works greatly for the capitalists, because 1.) they increase their profits with cheaper labor, and 2.) the workers in the first world are still highly repressed, but happy enough that they dont revolt, which of course, makes the capitalists smile, and smile, and smile......all the way to the bank. Literally.


I agree that workers are handled better in the west and hence are less likely to revolt. However, that is not the result of capitalism but the result of the labor movement, which is slowly being rolled back in America. That is why workers in America are not treated as well as workers in Denmark: no real evolutionary socialist movement. When we have that here and use it to help workers around the world, we will see change.




Yep, and that must be done through revolutionary means.

If needs be. I agree that in some places violent revolution is the answer, but I don't see the first world America as being part of that aside from us supporting them. I am not anti-violence when it is the only real solution.

But at the same time it would be absurd to say that Chile under Allende would have been just as bad and just as capitalistic as Chile under Pinochet...

[Bardo]

For example, nothing is stopping a state from adopting a parliamentary system for its legislature as opposed to winner-take-all elections. The result would be a socialist party that gains 8% of the vote taking 8% of the legislature and building from there.

A) 8% is hardly enough to hold any sway in the state legislature. There are entire countries that have had a social-democrat majority for years over the last century and are no closer to socialism than many countries that have never had a social-democratic presence in government. Is the UK or Canada really any closer to ushering in proletarian rule than the US?

B) What comes next after winning a portion of votes? Are the means of production seized by the government and distributed to workers before the next election? What happens when a conservative party gets elected?

No ground is truly gained in the advancement of socialism.



Difficult to pull off, but a lot easier that taking down...(inhales deeply)
The Army
The Navy
The Marines
The FBI
The CIA
The US Marshals
The police of every city and state
The Air Force
The armed counter-revolutionary populace.

But these institutions aren't separate autonomous entities that answer to only themselves. Once the head of the snake is removed, the body will die. Besides, this doesn't take into account defections, mutinies, etc.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

B) What comes next after winning a portion of votes? Are the means of production seized by the government and distributed to workers before the next election? What happens when a conservative party gets elected?


Exactly. Capitalism has always found a way to propagate their system. In Holland we have this proverb: a cat in a corner can make strange leaps. It means that, when cornered, the state will act in an nexpected manner.

[WelcomeToTheParty]

As long as certain freedoms are retained (speech, assembly etc) evolution is possible...if they are taken away? Well, plan B: revolution. I am not against true revolution per se, just saying it is not likely in the first world.

...

If needs be. I agree that in some places violent revolution is the answer, but I don't see the first world America as being part of that aside from us supporting them. I am not anti-violence when it is the only real solution.


What if all of those freedoms are retained and a majority of workers in America support a change to socialism, but an election gives them less than a majority in Congress? Would you support seizing control of the state by establishing workers councils etc.?

[Ironfront]

A) 8% is hardly enough to hold any sway in the state legislature. There are entire countries that have had a social-democrat majority for years over the last century and are no closer to socialism than many countries that have never had a social-democratic presence in government. Is the UK or Canada really any closer to ushering in proletarian rule than the US?

Canada is closer to proletariat rule than America in that the workers are organized and doing better than American workers are. Something like 80% are in unions and can be militarized if needs be.

As for 8%, that is a start. 8% can swing a vote one way or another, like whether or not to hand our food supply to Monsanto or whether or not to let a corporation run a prison. Anyone who thinks those decisions are irrelevant is not seeing the big picture.



B) What comes next after winning a portion of votes? Are the means of production seized by the government and distributed to workers before the next election? What happens when a conservative party gets elected?


It is give and take, as the populace slowly moves towards socialism.





But these institutions aren't separate autonomous entities that answer to only themselves. Once the head of the snake is removed, the body will die. Besides, this doesn't take into account defections, mutinies, etc.

The military, in the US especially, is the biggest collection of reactionaries in existence. Yes, there are some leftists there, but majority are "good old boys" I am afraid to say. Take out the "head" and a new one will fill the gap...look at Spain, the government was so weak a general was able to take over and make things more capitalists than ever before.

[Ironfront]

What if all of those freedoms are retained and a majority of workers in America support a change to socialism, but an election gives them less than a majority in Congress? Would you support seizing control of the state by establishing workers councils etc.?

Yes, if it was the will of the workers. If a mass movement began to seize the state and capital, I would be for that. But there is a difference between essentially a "leap in evolution" and a "vanguardist revolution." Look at Poland with Solidarity: they used mass demonstrations and a shut down of state to win demands...granted, Lech Walesa is a homophobic prick, but the tactics worked.

Malcolm X was right: the ballot or the bullet.

But to rush to violent revolution and ignore all else is folly. In America, violent revolution is not possible any time soon. So what do we do? Wait and hope things get "bad enough" for change? And let workers suffer in the meantime? Or start a premature revolution? Yes, that's a good idea...and give the ruling classes an excuse to crack down harder than ever before and turn the Left into a terrorist boogeyman.

The evolutionary solution is to build a movement of workers and move forward, challenging the system and seek both the immediate reforms workers need now and work towards the absolute socialism of the future.

Are the social-democrats of today and Europe and Canada working towards socialism? Many aren't, but that is not a failing of evolutionary socialism, that is a failing of bureaucrats. Social-Democracy/evolutionary socialism needs to get away from the wishy-washy mess it has boeltermecome and needs to go back to Bernstein, Hann and Allende.

[#FF0000]

Canada is closer to proletariat rule than America in that the workers are organized and doing better than American workers are. Something like 80% are in unions and can be militarized if needs be.

Uhh try 30%, and having high union membership in any case doesn't mean a country is "closer to proletariat (sic) rule".


Many aren't, but that is not a failing of evolutionary socialism

Why not?

[Dropdead]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Front

Anti-nazi and anti-communist. :laugh:

[Bardo]

Canada is closer to proletariat rule than America in that the workers are organized and doing better than American workers are. Something like 80% are in unions and can be militarized if needs be.

Not only is the unionization rate about a third of this estimate, but the number of unionized Canadians has been on the decline since the 90s. Also, what would these unions be militarized for if not revolutionary action? Would they militarize themselves to the polls and vote in a liberal government?


As for 8%, that is a start. 8% can swing a vote one way or another, like whether or not to hand our food supply to Monsanto or whether or not to let a corporation run a prison. Anyone who thinks those decisions are irrelevant is not seeing the big picture.

Like I said, there are countries that have had a social-democratic majority, which is a lot more support than 8%.

Social democrats in office will never abolish capitalism. They'll never seize Monsanto. They might ban private prisons, but the conservatives who follow them will over turn the ban. Lather, rinse and repeat, the process will come full circle.




It is give and take, as the populace slowly moves towards socialism.


Before we go on, please define socialism.

[WelcomeToTheParty]

Ironfront's views on revolution don't really seem to be that out there. I'm assuming that the restriction isn't a result of those views.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

The Iron Front is politically what was left over from the leftist slaughtering Social Democrat government that presided over Germany before the NDSAP's ascension to power.

[Ironfront]

Not only is the unionization rate about a third of this estimate, but the number of unionized Canadians has been on the decline since the 90s. Also, what would these unions be militarized for if not revolutionary action? Would they militarize themselves to the polls and vote in a liberal government?

I was thinking of Denmark's union membership rate, my bad. And you can have militant action and militant unions without a "streets run red with the blood of non-believers" revolution. All the gains in the original American labor movement, for example, had the help of militarized unions.




Like I said, there are countries that have had a social-democratic majority, which is a lot more support than 8%.

Very few are. In Canada they have only gain a large share, and they are only the majority in Denmark now again after being out for years. Still, having a minority to build on would be a start of something in America, which is more than we have now.



Social democrats in office will never abolish capitalism. They'll never seize Monsanto. They might ban private prisons, but the conservatives who follow them will over turn the ban. Lather, rinse and repeat, the process will come full circle.


Allende moved to socialize and hand over corporations to the populace, and he was an evolutionary socialist. Yes, many are spineless, but how many revolutionaries were anything but socialist? (*cough* Stalin *cough*)






Before we go on, please define socialism.

A market system that is controlled by the working class through some kind of a democratic system. Communism is a post-market economy.

[Ironfront]

Anti-nazi and anti-communist. :laugh:

At the time, there were the fascist Nazis and the Stalinist communists, both sides being opposed to democracy, human rights and worker's rule. The SPD and other socialists were the only ones fighting against both evils.

I am a realist and try to stick to principles. The Koch brothers, Hugh Grant (Monsanto CEO) and the rest of the corporatist slime are evil...and so is Castro, Kim Jung-Un and whatever state capitalist is calling the shots in Apple's Republic of China this week.

Likewise, Hitler and Mussolini were evil...and so was Stalin, Mao and Che.

And the communists picked the fight with the SPD, not vice versa. Trosky, who was no saint himself, thought otherwise.

[Ironfront]

The Iron Front is politically what was left over from the leftist slaughtering Social Democrat government that presided over Germany before the NDSAP's ascension to power.


Actually, the communist started the fight, with Thalmann gladly becoming Stalin's lap dog. Being anti-Stalinist is not being anti-leftist, as Stalin was quite possibly the biggest capitalist of all time.

[Ironfront]

Ironfront's views on revolution don't really seem to be that out there. I'm assuming that the restriction isn't a result of those views.


People tend to have very "binary" views of the world...and that isn't just lefties, right-wingers etc, but people in general regardless of the topic. Many leftists I have noticed see the world as revolutionaries, liberals and right-wingers. The concept of a different position is hard for them to grasp.

I barely ever hear them say "evolutionary" but instead they assume that there is nothing between the liberal who thinks that voting for Obama is the only thing they can do to better the working class and the revolutionary who dreams of violent overthrow of the state, the capitalists, and destroy everything from the family to Newton's law of gravity.

Between "reform" and "revolution" is "evolution." I do believe that wide spread, systematic change is necessary and that there will be upheavals to create that change, but those upheavals do not mean smaller changed within a current structure for short term goals are out of the question.

Reform is weak because it ignores the bigger picture and looks only at short term gains which make worker's lives better in the short term without ultimately giving them the power. Revolution is weak for the opposite reason: it looks only to giving workers the power in a distantly dreamed of future while not helping them gain much needed immediate help that reformers could provide.
Evolution is strong in that it addresses both concerns equally.

Funny thing is, I am restricted, while having essentially the same views as Allende, Eugene Debs and the later Malcolm X (my heroes) If they were on this forum today, they too would be restricted.

That's why Nazis are bigger online and why they can rally together more easily then leftist: they can put aside their difference and see each other as fellow white-supremacists first. Meanwhile the left rarely put aside differences and look at each other as fellow worker-supremacists.

[Luís Henrique]

And I would note that Thalmann was a Stalinist who was just as bad as Hitler.

Thaelmann was a Stalinist, no doubt, and a quite stupid, subservient, and incompetent one to booth, but he was "as bad as Hitler" only in the sence in which a schoolyard bully is as bad as Genghis Khan...

Luís Henrique

[Per Levy]

At the time, there were the fascist Nazis and the Stalinist communists, both sides being opposed to democracy, human rights and worker's rule. The SPD and other socialists were the only ones fighting against both evils.

the spd had no problem with opposing democracy and human rights when they slaughtered workers like on may the first of 1929, over 30 workers, even spd members were killed on orders of spd led police. also there was a chance of workers rule in germany, thanks to the spd, who was in favour of bourgeois democracy, it didnt happen, workers rule was smashed in fire and blood.


And the communists picked the fight with the SPD, not vice versa. Trosky, who was no saint himself, thought otherwise.

so it was rosa luxemburg and karl liebknecht who picked the fight with the traitorous spd? the same spd that supporeted the slaughter of millions of workers in ww1? the same spd that send deathaquads after luxemburg and liebknecht? the same spd that fought workers rule and workers power with the protofascist freikorps? seriously you dont need to rewrite history.

[Dropdead]

Actually, the communist started the fight, with Thalmann gladly becoming Stalin's lap dog. Being anti-Stalinist is not being anti-leftist, as Stalin was quite possibly the biggest capitalist of all time.
Seriously, what the fuck? Can you explain?

[Ironfront]

the spd had no problem with opposing democracy and human rights when they slaughtered workers like on may the first of 1929, over 30 workers, even spd members were killed on orders of spd led police. also there was a chance of workers rule in germany, thanks to the spd, who was in favour of bourgeois democracy, it didnt happen, workers rule was smashed in fire and blood.


The SPD did not "lead the police" and the leadership was sorry for the incident that killed thirty people...Stalinist have yet to apologize for the murder of 30 million plus people.



so it was rosa luxemburg and karl liebknecht who picked the fight with the traitorous spd? the same spd that supporeted the slaughter of millions of workers in ww1? the same spd that send deathaquads after luxemburg and liebknecht? the same spd that fought workers rule and workers power with the protofascist freikorps? seriously you dont need to rewrite history.

The SPD actually had a huge part of founding the Spartacus league and worked to end the war, and formed the Iron front to fight the Freikorps.

[Ironfront]

Seriously, what the fuck? Can you explain?

State Capitalism, the worst form of capitalism there is. Stalin was the undisputed owner of the state and all industries and property in the USSR and was hence the most brutal of all capitalist bosses.

Something isn't socialist simply because it is run by the government: if that was the case the US Marines would be socialist. It has to be run by and for the workers and not for the bosses. Hence, Stalin was a capitalist in the tenth degree.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

The SPD actually had a huge part of founding the Spartacus league and worked to end the war, and formed the Iron front to fight the Freikorps.

Yes, the prewar SPD, which split into the left-wing Spartakusbund, KPD, KAPD etc., the centrist marsh of the USPD, and the protofascist maniacs around Ebert and Noske, your beloved SPD of the Weimar "Republic", who destroyed the German soviets, massacred the German workers, sent the Freikorps after the Spartacists etc. That neither Ebert nor Noske were butchered by the Nazi regime their policies led to is one of the most unsatisfying developments in history.

[Bardo]

And you can have militant action and militant unions without a "streets run red with the blood of non-believers" revolution.

You can also have a communist revolution without a "streets run red with blood" style revolution. Direct action of the unions can be very revolutionary.



All the gains in the original American labor movement, for example, had the help of militarized unions.

Indeed. However, America is not socialist and the labor movement organized and participated in direct action. They didn't win their gains via ticking off a box at the polls. In such a case, would you say FDR helped advance the US towards socialism?



Stalin was the undisputed owner of the state and all industries and property in the USSR and was hence the most brutal of all capitalist bosses.


Stalin wasn't the sole owner of anything aside from his suit and mustache.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Stalin wasn't the sole owner of anything aside from his suit and mustache.

To be fair, he also owned his boots and had de facto ownership of his dacha.

Anyway, the comments about "Stalin" (in quotes, because what people usually call "Stalin" is some amorphous agglomeration of several Soviet figures and administrative bodies) are really symptomatic. All of the liberals masquerading as socialists are absolutely mad with Stalinophobia - not only do they miss the point of a proletarian criticism of Stalin, and condemn "Stalin" from a bourgeois perspective, they think that the crimes of this "Stalin" justify their favourite bourgeois politician.

[Per Levy]

The SPD did not "lead the police" and the leadership was sorry for the incident that killed thirty people.

again with the rewriting of history, the police presidents of both, berlin and prussia were spd members, the berlin police president Karl Zörgiebel pretty much declared a state of emergency over large parts of berlin. wich meant no lights on at nights, no open windows, if you happend to look out of your window you got shot, like the first victim of this massacre, who, ironicly, was a spd member.


The SPD actually had a huge part of founding the Spartacus league and worked to end the war,.not the spd, the left wing of the spd, the left wing the spd put to the sword after the revolution. and that left wing of the spd was against the war and fought it but not the spd and especially not the spd you adore so much, wich means the worker murdering weimar republic spd.


and formed the Iron front to fight the Freikorpsafter using the freikorps to kill revolutionary workers, after using the freikorps to smash the bavarian soviet republic, after using the freikorps to fight poles in the east and much much more. besides the iron front was pretty impotent, the only real organization who fought nazis and other right wingers in the street was the rote frontkämpferbund http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotfrontkämpferbund there were others too i guess, but the iron front wasnt thats for sure.

i could also go on how the spd used the military to break the 2 gouverments of thuringia and saxony were spd and kpd formed democratic coalitions, but whatever.

[Brutus]

Really? An SPD supporter? The deaths of Rosa Luxemburg, Karl Liebknecht, the communist killed by the freikorps and army in the German revolution and workers are on their hands. Ebert and his lackeys can rot in the dustbin of history as the capitalist swine that they were

[Ironfront]

Yes, the prewar SPD, which split into the left-wing Spartakusbund, KPD, KAPD etc., the centrist marsh of the USPD, and the protofascist maniacs around Ebert and Noske, your beloved SPD of the Weimar "Republic", who destroyed the German soviets, massacred the German workers, sent the Freikorps after the Spartacists etc. That neither Ebert nor Noske were butchered by the Nazi regime their policies led to is one of the most unsatisfying developments in history.

No, Noske was thrown in a war camp by the Gestapo, and the allies had to bail him out. No one sent the Freikorps after the Spartacists but the Freikorps themselves...and how the hell can the SPD have founded the Spartacus leage (as you admit) and destroyed it at the same time?

[Ironfront]

To be fair, he also owned his boots and had de facto ownership of his dacha.

Anyway, the comments about "Stalin" (in quotes, because what people usually call "Stalin" is some amorphous agglomeration of several Soviet figures and administrative bodies) are really symptomatic. All of the liberals masquerading as socialists are absolutely mad with Stalinophobia - not only do they miss the point of a proletarian criticism of Stalin, and condemn "Stalin" from a bourgeois perspective, they think that the crimes of this "Stalin" justify their favourite bourgeois politician.

So only liberals are anti-Stalinst? Oh...so Trosky was just a liberal democrat? And Eugene Debs? And Allende? and Tito?

I will never say anything bad about Tito because, really, there isn't that much bad to say. Stalin however, is another story...

The capitalists are the re-writers of history, and to abandon principals in the face of facts is to embrace capitalism.

[Ironfront]

.


not the spd, the left wing of the spd, the left wing the spd put to the sword after the revolution. and that left wing of the spd was against the war and fought it but not the spd and especially not the spd you adore so much, wich means the worker murdering weimar republic spd.

So it was the SPD...but not the SPD? Okay...



after using the freikorps to kill revolutionary workers, after using the freikorps to smash the bavarian soviet republic, after using the freikorps to fight poles in the east and much much more. besides the iron front was pretty impotent, the only real organization who fought nazis and other right wingers in the street was the rote frontkämpferbund http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotfrontkämpferbund there were others too i guess, but the iron front wasnt thats for sure.
Everyone fought the Nazis. The problem was it was too late to fight the Nazis because they had all the military support and Stalin signed a deal with Hitler and his lapdogs (the German Communists) where incapable of doing anything without his nod.

Oh, and the Bavarian Soviet Republic was proclaimed by Kurt Eisner, himself a Social-Democrat...

[Ironfront]

Really? An SPD supporter? The deaths of Rosa Luxemburg, Karl Liebknecht, the communist killed by the freikorps and army in the German revolution and workers are on their hands. Ebert and his lackeys can rot in the dustbin of history as the capitalist swine that they were

The German Revolution was started by Social Democrats, with only the right-wing of the party opposing it. And Stalin is in the dustbin as a Capitalist bastard, and everything he and the "revolutionaries" created has backfired....meanwhile, real Evolutionary Socialists are challenging capitalism like never before in Latin America. The capitalists were ten times as terrified of Chavez as they ever were of all the coffee-house revolutionaries across the world combined.

[MarxSchmarx]

I'm gonna chime in from a different perspective than what's been said sofar.

Ironfront - I think both you and the "revolutionaries" you imagine you are criticizing are putting the cart before the proverbial horse here.

I think the debate over how to win state power - either "gradually" or through storming the barricades - to begin dismantling capitalism somehow seems to me to largely be beside the point.

This is because the very notion that state power can facilitate the abolition of capitalism, however that power is gained, is mistaken. The end to capitalism's legitimacy will have nothing or very little to do with the state. Therefore I think to some degree you are of course entitle to argue until you run out of air why this approach to taking state power is preferable to that approach, but I think you will still end up finding yourself stuck in the maze.

How then must capitalism be fought? I think it must be fought on several fronts, but the goal of state reforms is a largely secondary part of the overall enterprise. It is of some limited relevance, sure, but it's important to keep the bigger picture in mind.

Of course there are plenty on here and respected comrades IRL who disagree vehemently with me. But I just thought I'd offer a different perspective.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

No, Noske was thrown in a war camp by the Gestapo, and the allies had to bail him out.

I know. It's disappointing that they succeeded.


No one sent the Freikorps after the Spartacists but the Freikorps themselves...

Except that the Freikorps were literally ordered to march against the Spartacists by Noske, following consultations with Ebert. And that they were not ordered out of Berlin until they had massacred the Spartacists. And that the Freikorps were formed on Noske's orders.


and how the hell can the SPD have founded the Spartacus leage (as you admit) and destroyed it at the same time?

Because, as I've already said, the prewar SPD and the SPD of the Weimar "Republic" were not the same organisation. The latter was originally the far-right wing of the prewar SPD. The Spartacists were the former left wing.


So only liberals are anti-Stalinst? Oh...so Trosky was just a liberal democrat? And Eugene Debs? And Allende? and Tito?

Debs, as I recall it, never mentioned Stalin, for which he is more than excused, given that he was terminally ill in that period. Allende was a reformist, and Tito a revisionist.

And Trotsky criticised the Soviet Union from a proletarian standpoint, not from a liberal, bourgeois and humanistic perspective.


I will never say anything bad about Tito because, really, there isn't that much bad to say.

Except Tito did everything Stalin is usually accused of, and in addition to that he held back the development of a state planned economy in Yugoslavia.


Oh, and the Bavarian Soviet Republic was proclaimed by Kurt Eisner, himself a Social-Democrat...

Eisner was a member of the USPD, not the Noske-Ebert SPD.

[#FF0000]

Stalin was the undisputed owner of the state and all industries and property in the USSR

I, like, kind of agree with what you're saying -- but this isn't remotely true.

[Per Levy]

So it was the SPD...but not the SPD? Okay...

what is there not to understand? there were several splits from the spd, the uspd and the spartacist league wich later became the kpd. the right wing of the spd remaind in the spd and took power and supressed workers power and supressed the kpd as well did many other nasty things. and that is the spd that formed the iron front wich you so adore.


Everyone fought the Nazis. The problem was it was too late to fight the Nazis because they had all the military support and Stalin signed a deal with Hitler

get yout timeline straight, the hitler-stalin pact was signed in 1939, long after spd/iron front/kpd/and all the others were banned. sic years after the nazis took power. and it wasnt to late to fight the nazis in the weimar republic, but that would've meant workers power and workers rule both of these things the spd was not in favour of. the spd hoped the "democratic" state would solve all this and see where it ended.


Oh, and the Bavarian Soviet Republic was proclaimed by Kurt Eisner, himself a Social-Democrat...

yeah kurt eisner was a social democrat, not the opportunist right wing kind mind you, also he was in the uspd not the spd. what do you have to say about that the spd, the one that created the iron front, has sent proto-fascist freikorps to smash the bavarian soviet republic?

[zumacraig]

To the OP,

To say you've matured and still 'believe' anything is pure delusion. Especially the fact that you think capitalism is efficient. Quite the opposite, it's irrationally and psychotically inefficient.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

To the OP,

To say you've matured and still 'believe' anything is pure delusion. Especially the fact that you think capitalism is efficient. Quite the opposite, it's irrationally and psychotically inefficient.

Don't forget highly instable.

[zumacraig]

Don't forget highly instable.

Right. I probably could've listed a million more things. :grin:

[liberlict]

So palestinians supporters are fascists?

Hmmmm yeah good point. Palestinians aren't considered fascists. Either is Tibetan nationalism.

[Forward Union]

The capitalist mode of production is indeed efficient and, if controlled by a worker's run republic, as opposed to the bourgeois democracy of today, it can be moved in a proper direction. As the years go by and humanity evolves, the capitalist system can be beaten back further until it is gone. A slow steady erosion of the ruling class...an evolution, as opposed to a revolution.

Let me translate this into an actual language, so as to hold a mirror up to you, hopefully alowing you to see for yourself how utterly nonsensical and meaningless this paragraph is:

"The private ownership of the means of production is indeed efficient and if indeed run by majority (and therefore publicly owned) as opposed to privately owned then [The system of private ownership]can be moved in a proper direction"

So what you are saying, is that if the workers democratically control the means of production but don't actually control it they can get the system of private ownership of the means of production to "move in the right direction". You have a catastrophic misunderstanding of this entire branch of politics. I think what you are suggesting is that a strong labour movement and a receptive political party may be able to reform capitalism to the point where capitalism doesn't really exist anymore ? Well this actually works to a limited extent. I mean in the interwar years in the US President Roosevelt was fairly sympathetic to social democratic measures, at one point he even told Labour Leaders who were pressing for him to do various things "You make me do it" and what he basically meant is "get out in the streets, protest in the factories, carry out sit down strikes, organise, and if there's enough public pressure I'll do it, But I have to face down corporate power" and there was even a coup attempt against him lead by Gerald MacGuire. Actually a lot of reforms were brought in at that time all over the developed world. Things like the 8 hour day and the minimum wage. Yet now most of those rights have been chipped away at. I'm sure you can list people in your own personal life who work more than 8 hours a day.

Do we really want to be fighting for reforms and then watching them crumble away every 50 years? Or should we push forward with a revolutionary programe, it seems that reforms that benefit the workers are a byproduct of this activity anyway. I agree with Blanqi here "I am not a professor of politics or Socialism. I am a man of action. The revolutionary party will apply the necessary reforms. I have no programme"