Leftists These Days

[Ace High]

I am writing this thread because I see a bit of a disturbing trend among our community that actually could bring harm and mockery to our cause. The trend I speak of is the tendency for current leftists to be stuck in the past and obsessively admiring such people as Stalin and Mao. Here are my biggest pet peeves:

1. Stalin and Mao. Why do we consider them as one of us? The banking cartels and capitalists are laughing at us for this because guess what? Capitalists FUNDED the Bolsheviks. Many factories in Stalinist Russia were outsourced their by big business interests. David Rockefeller called the Chinese famine under Mao one of the greatest experiments in human history! Why did capitalists fund and support Maoist China and the Bolsheviks? Because of two things. Population control and a catalyst for endless wars to make profit for the capitalist elites. But I will discuss that in some other thread some other day.

2. Differentiating a fascist mockery of Marxism from actual Marxism. Any "leftist" who thinks Stalinism represents anything close to leftist socialism or Marxism needs to do some serious reflection. Stalin created a class of military elites to subjugate and feed off of the proletariat. Making Russia an industrialized nation and relocating people to collective farms is NOT communism or socialism. It is MERCANTILISM. It is a modern version of a monarchy. He made a mockery of Marxism by using the red flag to represent an ultra nationalist terror state. And so did Mao and the Kims.

3. The word "comrade." Really? Are we seriously using that word to refer to each other? It is a great word, don't get me wrong, but it makes us look a bit ridiculous doesn't it? Calling each other "comrade" is going to make us seem like coffee shop hipsters with Che Guevara t shirts. Just because the Bolsheviks made heavy use of the word does not mean that we should mimic them for the sake of sentiment. Call each other brothers and sisters for all I care, but let's drop this whole comrade business.

4. Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism. Some people have come to believe that adopting the specific strategies of these people and obsessing over what their personal beliefs might have been can help our cause. First of all, Stalin and Mao were ultra nationalist sociopaths. Lenin was admirable, and he should be a figure we respect, but come on. Leninism? He developed his strategy specifically for Russia. Let us now develop our OWN strategy for the modern age.

5. Black nationalism. Why do leftists these days associate themselves with black nationalists? They are just as bad as white nationalists, you realize this right? Just because black people are systematically oppressed does not mean we should support racist organizations. The black movements today are NOT the same as the ones from the 60s and 70s. These are NOT the black panthers. The black panthers were not nationalists, just black people protecting themselves from police brutality and unfair prosecution that directly targeted them and that was okay. But TODAY, black nationalists view whites just as white nationalists views blacks, and that is a bad thing isn't it? After all, we know white nationalism is a bad thing. SO let's admit that black nationalism is too.

Those are the main things we need to change about our movement. We wonder why nobody takes us seriously. Well, let us do some reflection and improvement and make sure we alienate those who bring shame to our movement and those who lump us in as a bunch of angry teenagers living in the past who just want to mimic what they think "the left" should be based on their portrayal in the media. Let's make our own destiny in today's age.

[connoros]

Reading a post like this, it's absolutely no wonder why a lot of people don't take leftism seriously. We don't really have the time or energy to waste on appealing to bourgeois sentiment and trying to explain away some of the most successful socialistic endeavors as "not really socialist." You're really doing nothing but regurgitating what you're expected to believe about Communism, and all that has ever done for our movement is weaken it; it has never done anything to make it stronger. And, comrade, the reason I'm the only one to have responded to this so far is because it's full of "oh boy, this thread again." And calling black nationalism as bad as white nationalism shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what black nationalism actually is, as well as how race works in the West.

I realize this is the learning forum, but you didn't really make this post to learn, did you?

[piet11111]

I would consider the USSR a success only as an example of the strength of a planned economy but when non communists think of the USSR they think of a totalitarian regime.

And then we are supposed to defend the USSR as a shining example ?

I would much rather explain honestly what was good AND bad about the USSR.

[connoros]

I would consider the USSR a success only as an example of the strength of a planned economy but when non communists think of the USSR they think of a totalitarian regime.

And then we are supposed to defend the USSR as a shining example ?

I would much rather explain honestly what was good AND bad about the USSR.

There's a difference between honest criticism of historical shortcomings and just trying to appeal to ruling class sentiment by telling people what they expect to hear.

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

The former USSR and similar regimes have a very complicated history, and it's hard to boil it down to "good" or "bad" - like most of the rest of history.

Did those regimes (especially in Russia and China) succeed (eventually) in modernising two large, not particularly united it has to be said, empires so that they might compete with the west. Yes, they did. People in those nations can thank their respective Parties for bringing about massive investment into infrastructure and education and healthcare.

On the other hand, most regimes that have claimed to be socialist can also claim a hell of a body-count. Don't get me wrong, I'm not comparing them unfavourably to the west or anything - we are equally capable of wholly pointless murder on a grand scale - but regardless, there was a vast amount of unnecessary death and suffering.

There is nothing to be gained for us extolling the virtues of the USSR and sweeping its mistakes, atrocities and injustices under the rug, neither is there any purpose in going on at length how they all did it completely wrong and were generally a bad thing.

[connoros]

There is nothing to be gained for us extolling the virtues of the USSR and sweeping its mistakes, atrocities and injustices under the rug, neither is there any purpose in going on at length how they all did it completely wrong and were generally a bad thing.

The key, though, is to understand what the causes of these historical attempts' shortcomings were, if we've even come to a point at which we can agree on the nature of those shortcomings.

[G4b3n]

The USSR was a totalitarian regime and any post Lenin political theory or action should be radically rejected by any self respecting socialist. As soon as "socialists" begin to talk about sacrificing personal liberty for the good of the "socialist state", I immediately lose what respect I had for them.

Watching Marxist-Leninist of the Stalinist apologist variety try to justify the failure of state socialism within their theory of Byzantine complexity is simply laughable for anyone who actually wants to see the establishment of freedom and understands pre-Stalinist Marxism-Leninism within its historical context.

On a side note, black nationalism is NOT as bad as white nationalism, primarily because it is not rooted in hate and genocide like white nationalism. All though it is undesirable in an egalitarian sense.

[connoros]

The USSR was a totalitarian regime and any post Lenin political theory or action should be radically rejected by any self respecting socialist. As soon as "socialists" begin to talk about sacrificing personal liberty for the good of the "socialist state", I immediately lose what respect I had for them.

Watching Marxist-Leninist of the Stalinist apologist variety try to justify the failure of state socialism within their theory of Byzantine complexity is simply laughable for anyone who actually wants to see the establishment of freedom and understands pre-Stalinist Marxism-Leninism within its historical context.



That seems like a lot of work just to say "nuh uh, Stalin was bad!"

[G4b3n]

That seems like a lot of work just to say "nuh uh, Stalin was bad!"

Well, I did give plain justification, but whatever you say boss.
I also dislike Stalin due to his reactionary policies regarding women and homosexuals, just like any socialist ought to. I do not know of any socialists today that discriminate against women and homosexuals, do you?

[connoros]

Well, I did give plain justification, but whatever you say boss.

Well, no, you really didn't. You threw around words like "totalitarian" and "failure," while giving no examples of either and at the same time praising Lenin, as if Stalin represented an ideological break from him. I'm sure you'll insist he did, but I'm not so sure you'll do more than just say so like it's self-evident.

[connoros]

I also dislike Stalin due to his reactionary policies regarding women and homosexuals, just like any socialist ought to. I do not know of any socialists today that discriminate against women and homosexuals, do you?

Sodomy laws were on the books during Lenin's time.

[G4b3n]

Well, no, you really didn't. You threw around words like "totalitarian" and "failure," while giving no examples of either and at the same time praising Lenin, as if Stalin represented an ideological break from him. I'm sure you'll insist he did, but I'm not so sure you'll do more than just say so like it's self-evident.

Totalitarian= Lack of personal liberty, control of your personal life by your rulers, that much is evident.

When I say "failure", I mean he failed to establish what socialism actually is. Sure, he created a strong Russia, gave the precious gift of atomic weapons. But did he establish any worker's control? Mind you, a term that is virtually non existent within the Stalinist, i.e totalitarian mindset.
I am sure you will draw up some nonsense about how Stalin's bureaucratic and military elite weren't actually separate classes independent of the proletariat and poor peasantry, but we know that would be a bold face lie.

I do not praise Lenin, but I do accept his theoretical works as tolerable at best. If only he had actually allowed the soviets to exist, rather than dismantling the only worker's institutions in which working people could actually demonstrate power. Yes I condemn the actions of Lenin as well as Stalin.

Also, it doesn't bother me one bit that my views are in accordance with many bourgeois historians. Just like when Trotsky was accused of being a Fascist apologist after condemning Stalinist Russia. History is history and I will not change it for the sake of unity.

[G4b3n]

Sodomy laws were on the books during Lenin's time.

Like I said in my last post, I condemn the actions of Stalin AND Lenin. All though discrimination against homosexuals and women boosted during Stalin's time.

[connoros]

It's pretty easy to tell yourself you've won an argument when you've decided anything contrary to your position is necessarily a "boldface lie." So much for the learning forum.

[G4b3n]

It's pretty easy to tell yourself you've won an argument when you've decided anything contrary to your position is necessarily a "boldface lie." So much for the learning forum.

Prove to me that there was worker's control in Stalinist Russia and I will denounce libertarian socialism and become a devout M-L Stalinist.

[#FF0000]

Black nationalism. Why do leftists these days associate themselves with black nationalists? They are just as bad as white nationalists, you realize this right?

I have a very, very, very hard time seeing a parallel between someone like Harry Haywood and David Duke.

[Taters]

I also dislike Stalin due to his reactionary policies regarding women and homosexuals, just like any socialist ought to. I do not know of any socialists today that discriminate against women and homosexuals, do you?

Marx had some quite reactionary views regarding women and homosexuals as well. Do you dislike Marx, and should he be expected to have held the same views we do now?

[TheEmancipator]

My comr...my friend, I agree with most of your points, and I welcome you to the boards. Expect to be called a bourgeois counter-revolutionary revisionist proto-fascist a few times for condemning the bourgeois nationalist ideology that is Marxist-Leninism.

However, go easy on the Marxist-Leninists and other Stalin/Mao-worshipers. Yes, it is frustrating when we see people with Stalin and Mao on their avatar, if anything to provoke and seek attention. However, they ultimately believe in the same thing as you and I (you are a revolutionary "leftist" right?). They want the emancipation of the proleteriat from bourgeois oppression. They want a classless stateless society. Even in bourgeois moralistic terms, their intentions are good.

I would recommend that you abandon your crusade on them. It is their loss if they prefer to cling on to the past rather than look to the future. It is they who expose themselves as reactionaries when they denounce any new ideas and updates to Marxism as "revisionist" and follow their idols like a religion. They are ultimately leftist for religious reasons rather than progressive or rational reasons.

Quite frankly if we stopped opening threads on Stalin and Mao we wouldn't be drawn into tiresome historical debates that makes neo-nazi revisionism look vaguely accurate, tendency wars and arrogant, condescending tones being used. Your opposition only stokes the fires of their tribalistic fire-rituals towards their Holy Trinity of Lenin, Stalin and Mao.

Let's ignore the past and look towards a brighter future.

[G4b3n]

My comr...my friend, I agree with most of your points, and I welcome you to the boards. Expect to be called a bourgeois counter-revolutionary revisionist proto-fascist a few times for condemning the bourgeois nationalist ideology that is Marxist-Leninism.

However, go easy on the Marxist-Leninists and other Stalin/Mao-worshipers. Yes, it is frustrating when we see people with Stalin and Mao on their avatar, if anything to provoke and seek attention. However, they ultimately believe in the same thing as you and I (you are a revolutionary "leftist" right?). They want the emancipation of the proleteriat from bourgeois oppression. They want a classless stateless society. Even in bourgeois moralistic terms, their intentions are good.

I would recommend that you abandon your crusade on them. It is their loss if they prefer to cling on to the past rather than look to the future. It is they who expose themselves as reactionaries when they denounce any new ideas and updates to Marxism as "revisionist" and follow their idols like a religion. They are ultimately leftist for religious reasons rather than progressive or rational reasons.

Quite frankly if we stopped opening threads on Stalin and Mao we wouldn't be drawn into tiresome historical debates that makes neo-nazi revisionism look vaguely accurate, tendency wars and arrogant, condescending tones being used. Your opposition only stokes the fires of their tribalistic fire-rituals towards their Holy Trinity of Lenin, Stalin and Mao.

Let's ignore the past and look towards a brighter future.

I realize even the Stalinists have pure intentions but I can not sit by and watch them reject the atrocities and tragic loss of life that took place under these authoritarian regimes.

You can not hope to establish freedom by stripping it away, you can ponder through dialectics all day, it doesn't change much.

But yes, I agree. Perhaps my efforts in confronting state "socialists" are in vein.

[G4b3n]

Marx had some quite reactionary views regarding women and homosexuals as well. Do you dislike Marx, and should he be expected to have held the same views we do now?

His views regarding Women were radically progressive considering the time period, as well as in comparison to Stalin's policies.

As for Homosexuals, no one should expect Marx to have broken that cycle of oppression, he was just a man, not a God.

[Philosophos]

Let's ignore the past and look towards a brighter future.

I believe the ignore part is not what you really meant because that would be a little naive. Maybe change it into something like:" let's learn from the past so we won't do the same shit again". You know what I mean.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

I am writing this thread because I see a bit of a disturbing trend among our community that actually could bring harm and mockery to our cause. The trend I speak of is the tendency for current leftists to be stuck in the past and obsessively admiring such people as Stalin and Mao. Here are my biggest pet peeves:


We aren't "obsessing" over them, we are simply defending them because the likes of you insist on attacking them as individuals. If people like you would kindly withdraw from such discussions, we could finally have an interesting discussion on the class character of these regimes rather than individuals who do not define a society.


1. Stalin and Mao. Why do we consider them as one of us? The banking cartels and capitalists are laughing at us for this because guess what? Capitalists FUNDED the Bolsheviks. Many factories in Stalinist Russia were outsourced their by big business interests. David Rockefeller called the Chinese famine under Mao one of the greatest experiments in human history! Why did capitalists fund and support Maoist China and the Bolsheviks? Because of two things. Population control and a catalyst for endless wars to make profit for the capitalist elites. But I will discuss that in some other thread some other day.


The only thing here that I've seen confirmed by a source is the incident where the rockefellers supposedly gave Trotsky 6 million dollars during his stay in New Jersey, and when Lenin was given safe passage through Germany (The Rise of the Fourth Reich). The rest of this is non-sense, the American government funded the KMT throughout the civil war against the Chinese Communists, only providing Mao with a few arms during the period when they were fighting the Japanese, while famously giving Chiang Kai Shek 250 million dollars which laundered and gave to his family, earning him the nickname "cash my check". So clearly your claim about Mao's China is demonstrably false.


2. Differentiating a fascist mockery of Marxism from actual Marxism. Any "leftist" who thinks Stalinism represents anything close to leftist socialism or Marxism needs to do some serious reflection. Stalin created a class of military elites to subjugate and feed off of the proletariat. Making Russia an industrialized nation and relocating people to collective farms is NOT communism or socialism. It is MERCANTILISM. It is a modern version of a monarchy. He made a mockery of Marxism by using the red flag to represent an ultra nationalist terror state. And so did Mao and the Kims.


Mercantilism describes an economy where a money economy exists but the modern commodity form has yet to exist, the exploitation of surplus labor is in a primitive form if it exists at all, and capital exists in a minimal form but does not function as a social division of labor. Industry implies the existence of capital as a function of the social division of labor, and a developed bourgeois class and exploitation of surplus labor.



3. The word "comrade." Really? Are we seriously using that word to refer to each other? It is a great word, don't get me wrong, but it makes us look a bit ridiculous doesn't it? Calling each other "comrade" is going to make us seem like coffee shop hipsters with Che Guevara t shirts. Just because the Bolsheviks made heavy use of the word does not mean that we should mimic them for the sake of sentiment. Call each other brothers and sisters for all I care, but let's drop this whole comrade business.


Not all of us are "brothers and sisters" and some of us do not want to be defined by our gender identity or addressed with gendered titles that are demeaning. To quote at lengh an article from Comrade Kevin Rashid Johnson:


Kevin “Rashid” Johnson
Minister of Defense, NABPP-PC

What is a “Comrade” and Why We Use the Term

The concept of “Comrade” has a special meaning and significance in revolutionary struggle. We have often been asked to explain our use of this term, especially by our peers who are new to the struggle, instead of more familiar terms like “brother,” “homie,” “cousin,” “dog,” nigga,” etc.

Foremost, is that we aspire to build a society based upon equality and a culture of revolutionary transformation, so we need to purge ourselves of the tendency to use terms of address that connote cliques and exclusive relationships. A comrade can be a man or a woman of any color or ethnicity, but definitely a fellow fighter in the struggle against all oppression.

Terms like “mister” or “youngster” imply a difference of social status, entitlement to greater or lesser respect and built-in concepts of superiority or inferiority. Terms like “*****,” “dog,” nigga,” “ho,” etc., are degrading and disrespectful – even when used affectionately – as some do to dull the edge of their general usage in a world that disrespects us.

“Comrade,” however, connotes equality and respect. It implies “I’ve got your back,” and “we are one.” Comrades stand united unconditionally, and if need be, to the death. It implies a relationship that is inclusive, not exclusive, and not based on any triviality but revolutionary class solidarity. It represents the socialist future we seek to represent in the struggles of today, and the eventual triumph of classless communist society.

Most forms of address used by New Afrikans carry subtle implications of differing status and worth, or were originally meant to insult and dehumanize us. Embracing these terms has led to our subconsciously embracing these roles, and feeling and believing we are inferior and treating each other as worth less than others. So it is definitely important that we remind ourselves constantly that we are equal to and as good as anyone else and address each other accordingly. As Malcolm X put it in an interview with the Village Voice in 1965:

“The greatest mistake of the movement has been trying to organize a sleeping people around specific goals. You have to wake the people up first, then you’ll get action.”
“Wake them up to their exploitation?” the interviewer asked.

“No,” Malcolm replied, “to their humanity, to their own worth.”

Conscious use of the term “Comrade” instead of the many disparaging terms of address popular today, explicitly connects all people up as humans and equals. It reminds us of our interdependence for survival; promotes relations of equality, friendship and camaraderie between all oppressed and exploited people; it expresses the unified outlook of the proletariat; and it will promote a change in people’s outlook and thinking. It’s use identifies those committed to the revolutionary struggle and represents the future in the struggles of today.

As Amilcar Cabral expressed in “Our People are Our Mountians”: “I call you ‘comrades’ rather than ‘brothers and sisters’ because if we are brothers and sisters it’s not from choice, it’s no commitment; but if you are my comrade, I am your comrade too, and that’s a commitment and a responsibility. This is the political meaning of ‘comrade’.”

In the interpyrsonal sense, camaraderie binds people by respect, mutual support and trust, making organizations cohesive and stable. It builds and cements unity in the process of struggle, generating mutual confidence between people, affirming that we can rely upon each other regardless of the dangers that come from standing for the people and social justice for all.

Examples of genuine camaraderie are inspirational to the people and build their willingness to make a commitment to the struggle. The development and maintenance of organizational structure depends on the close and genuine camaraderie of the revolutionaries – what we call Panther Love!


4. Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism. Some people have come to believe that adopting the specific strategies of these people and obsessing over what their personal beliefs might have been can help our cause. First of all, Stalin and Mao were ultra nationalist sociopaths. Lenin was admirable, and he should be a figure we respect, but come on. Leninism? He developed his strategy specifically for Russia. Let us now develop our OWN strategy for the modern age.

This is because of the universal-particular dialectic. I will quote to passages from Mao's On Contradiction as they provide an adequate explanation of this concept.



The universality or absoluteness of contradiction has a twofold meaning. One is that contradiction exists in the process of development of all things, and the other is that in the process of development of each thing a movement of opposites exists from beginning to end.


Every form of motion contains within itself its own particular contradiction. This particular contradiction constitutes the particular essence which distinguishes one thing from another. It is the internal cause or, as it may be called, the basis for the immense variety of things in the world. There are many forms of motion in nature, mechanical motion, sound, light, heat, electricity, dissociation, combination, and so on. All these forms are interdependent, but in its essence each is different from the others. The particular essence of each form of motion is determined by its own particular contradiction. This holds true not only for nature but also for social and ideological phenomena. Every form of society, every form of ideology, has its own particular contradiction and particular essence.


In essence, the reason why we can speak of a "Leninism" or "Maoism" is not because we are describing the personal beliefs or ideologies of individuals, but rather each of these branches of Marxism represent distinct frameworks that have universal aspects and can be applied to particular situations. Likewise, there is no such thing as "Leninism" or "Maoism", they can not be abstracted nor can they exist separately from Marxism because both represent qualitative advances of the Marxist framework. This is why there is a Marxist-Leninism, a Marxist-Leninist-Maoism, because these terms communicate the manner in which each advance fits into the context of the wider Marxist framework.


5. Black nationalism. Why do leftists these days associate themselves with black nationalists? They are just as bad as white nationalists


This seems like a question of what context is required to make the national question progressive. First, let's start with a definition, what is the nation? In Stalin's work, Marxism and the National Question, he begins by making a clear distinction between a state, an empire, and a nation. To quote him:


What is a nation?

A nation is primarily a community, a definite community of people.

This community is not racial, nor is it tribal. The modern Italian nation was formed from Romans, Teutons, Etruscans, Greeks, Arabs, and so forth. The French nation was formed from Gauls, Romans, Britons, Teutons, and so on. The same must be said of the British, the Germans and others, who were formed into nations from people of diverse races and tribes.

Thus, a nation is not a racial or tribal, but a historically constituted community of people.

On the other hand, it is unquestionable that the great empires of Cyrus and Alexander could not be called nations, although they came to be constituted historically and were formed out of different tribes and races. They were not nations, but casual and loosely-connected conglomerations of groups, which fell apart or joined together according to the victories or defeats of this or that conqueror.

Thus, a nation is not a casual or ephemeral conglomeration, but a stable community of people.

But not every stable community constitutes a nation. Austria and Russia are also stable communities, but nobody calls them nations. What distinguishes a national community from a state community? The fact, among others, that a national community is inconceivable without a common language, while a state need not have a common language. The Czech nation in Austria and the Polish in Russia would be impossible if each did not have a common language, whereas the integrity of Russia and Austria is not affected by the fact that there are a number of different languages within their borders. We are referring, of course, to the spoken languages of the people and not to the official governmental languages.

Noting the contradiction between the community peoples in an empire, and in a nation which is an oppressed part of an empire, he continues to give a firmer definition:


A nation is a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture.

However, this definition can not do without a materialist explanation of the Nation within the broader context of capitalism. Stalin continues:


A nation is not merely a historical category but a historical category belonging to a definite epoch, the epoch of rising capitalism. The process of elimination of feudalism and development of capitalism is at the same time a process of the constitution of people into nations. Such, for instance, was the case in Western Europe. The British, French, Germans, Italians and others were formed into nations at the time of the victorious advance of capitalism and its triumph over feudal disunity.

But the formation of nations in those instances at the same time signified their conversion into independent national states. The British, French and other nations are at the same time British, etc., states. Ireland, which did not participate in this process, does not alter the general picture.

Matters proceeded somewhat differently in Eastern Europe. Whereas in the West nations developed into states, in the East multi-national states were formed, states consisting of several nationalities. Such are Austria-Hungary and Russia. In Austria, the Germans proved to be politically the most developed, and they took it upon themselves to unite the Austrian nationalities into a state. In Hungary, the most adapted for state organization were the Magyars – the core of the Hungarian nationalities – and it was they who united Hungary. In Russia, the uniting of the nationalities was undertaken by the Great Russians, who were headed by a historically formed, powerful and well-organized aristocratic military bureaucracy.

That was how matters proceeded in the East.

This special method of formation of states could take place only where feudalism had not yet been eliminated, where capitalism was feebly' developed, where the nationalities which had been forced into the background had not yet been able to consolidate themselves economically into integral nations.

But capitalism also began to develop in the Eastern states. Trade and means of communication were developing. Large towns were springing up. The nations were becoming economically consolidated. Capitalism, erupting into the tranquil life of the nationalities which had been pushed into the background, was arousing them and stirring them into action. The development of the press and the theatre, the activity of the Reichsrat (Austria) and of the Duma (Russia) were helping to strengthen "national sentiments." The intelligentsia that had arisen was being imbued with "the national idea" and was acting in the same direction....

But the nations which had been pushed into the background and had now awakened to independent life, could no longer form themselves into independent national states; they encountered on their -path the very powerful resistance of the ruling strata of the dominant nations, which had long ago assumed the control of the state. They were too late!...


So, here we see that the American state can be described as an imperial entity in which various nations are entrapped. In this entity we can see there is a white nation of sorts. We can not speak of a clearly defined white nation, as the North East has a relationship to the rural under devloped south that be described as one of national oppression. However, in both these situations, we can see that there is an oppressed white nation and a non-oppressed white nation. By "oppressed white nation" I am referring to the communities that live in rural, undeveloped south where electricity is a scarcity and regional dialects, languages, and accents still exist. This is the undeveloped aspect of White America and should not go unacknowledged. However, while acknowledging this aspect we can still speak of a "white america" because in both cases, we find a white community privileged at the expense of an oppressed pluro-national community of Afrikans, Hispanics, and Indigenous people. However this privilege manifests itself in two ways in both of the white communities. The undeveloped white community finds itself on the border of poverty if not already in poverty and the only thing separating them from the level of exploitation of the pluronational community is the institution of white supremacy. The white community of the middle class is not dependent in the same manner on the exploitation of the pluronational community in the same way. The relationship between the pluronational community and this aspect of White America is entirely colonial. For a solid example, think of Arab nationalism and European nationalism. Arab Nationalism is an ideology that attempts to alleviate the degree of suffering of the Arab people by asserting their national hegemony in the region at the expense of all other nations in the middle east, European nationalism is the ideology that reflects the parasitic relationship Europe has with the rest of the world, a relationship of Empire. In this sense, white nationalism represents an ideology of imperialism. The difference between Arab Nationalism and white nationalism of the south is that the latter is a component of the broader White America and in no way damages its interests, rather it is within the interest of White America that white nationalism succeeds.

Therefore, we can see that in terms of the relationship between nations, that black nationalism is the one which is progressive while white nationalism simply is an ideology of imperialism.


you realize this right? Just because black people are systematically oppressed does not mean we should support racist organizations. The black movements today are NOT the same as the ones from the 60s and 70s. These are NOT the black panthers. The black panthers were not nationalists, just black people protecting themselves from police brutality and unfair prosecution that directly targeted them and that was okay. But TODAY, black nationalists view whites just as white nationalists views blacks, and that is a bad thing isn't it? After all, we know white nationalism is a bad thing. SO let's admit that black nationalism is too.


Indeed they are not the same, The New Afrikan Black Panther Party for example dropped the demand for Afrikan independence in the U.S in the spirit of internationalism. Additionally, the New Afrikan Black Panther Party insists on a strictly proletarian composition as opposed to a lumpen one, maintains strict discipline against sexism and homophobia and has attempted to raise the woman and queer question higher within the movement. While most of their membership is drawn from class struggle work done in prisons, rather than from the poetry circles of universities.

So I would say, yes it is different, it is much better. You may find people supporting and associating with reactionaries of the New Black Panther Party, but these people aren't leftists.


Those are the main things we need to change about our movement. We wonder why nobody takes us seriously. Well, let us do some reflection and improvement and make sure we alienate those who bring shame to our movement and those who lump us in as a bunch of angry teenagers living in the past who just want to mimic what they think "the left" should be based on their portrayal in the media. Let's make our own destiny in today's age.

It is interesting how you just described yourself.

http://i.qkme.me/3sonk2.jpg

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

5. Black nationalism. Why do leftists these days associate themselves with black nationalists? They are just as bad as white nationalists, you realize this right? Just because black people are systematically oppressed does not mean we should support racist organizations. The black movements today are NOT the same as the ones from the 60s and 70s. These are NOT the black panthers. The black panthers were not nationalists, just black people protecting themselves from police brutality and unfair prosecution that directly targeted them and that was okay. But TODAY, black nationalists view whites just as white nationalists views blacks, and that is a bad thing isn't it? After all, we know white nationalism is a bad thing. SO let's admit that black nationalism is too.


I don't think you understand what racism is, so maybe that's the fundamental problem underlying this assertion. Racism (which, generally speaking, is a polite/pc code word for white supremacy) isn't an abstract set of beliefs or political positions: it's a real existing set of structures that puts, like, a million black men in America in prisons as virtual slave labour. Black nationalists don't view white people the same way white nationalists view black people, because white nationalists view racialized people from a position of entrenched power. I don't mean power in some abstract sense: I mean that white supremacists are backed by the largest and most vicious military/police system in world history, so when they view black people (and non-white people generally), they're doing it from a position that those people can't even approach.
That you would hold up the BPP in such a tokenistic way ("See! I don't hate black-led movements!") is particularly disgusting, because guess what? If any BPP member read your post, they'd call you a racist. And who precisely are the not-BPP movements of today that you're railing against? You don't provide a single example! That is to say, you're criticizing nobody in particular, essentially making your claim impossible to refute.
Finally, all of this implicitly excludes black nationalists from the left, implicitly (and racistly) suggesting the "real left" (the white left?) aren't black nationalists.

Check your shit.

[Remus Bleys]

3. The word "comrade." Really? Are we seriously using that word to refer to each other? It is a great word, don't get me wrong, but it makes us look a bit ridiculous doesn't it? Calling each other "comrade" is going to make us seem like coffee shop hipsters with Che Guevara t shirts. Just because the Bolsheviks made heavy use of the word does not mean that we should mimic them for the sake of sentiment. Call each other brothers and sisters for all I care, but let's drop this whole comrade business.

...

5. Black nationalism. Why do leftists these days associate themselves with black nationalists? They are just as bad as white nationalists, you realize this right? Just because black people are systematically oppressed does not mean we should support racist organizations. The black movements today are NOT the same as the ones from the 60s and 70s. These are NOT the black panthers. The black panthers were not nationalists, just black people protecting themselves from police brutality and unfair prosecution that directly targeted them and that was okay. But TODAY, black nationalists view whites just as white nationalists views blacks, and that is a bad thing isn't it? After all, we know white nationalism is a bad thing. SO let's admit that black nationalism is too. Lost me here. I can sympathize with black nationalism, because its an oppressed group, i can still sympathize.

Comrade is gender neutral. Its a better term.

[TheEmancipator]

I believe the ignore part is not what you really meant because that would be a little naive. Maybe change it into something like:" let's learn from the past so we won't do the same shit again". You know what I mean.

If that is the case then why do the MLs support failed regimes?

[Philosophos]

If that is the case then why do the MLs support failed regimes?

what does this have to do with what I suggested? I said learn from the past don't ignore it...

[Ace High]

Okay, from reading your posts, I will admit one thing. I did not think about the gender-neutral aspect of the word comrade, and I DO respect the choice to not identify as any particular gender.

As for the black nationalism argument. I am actually appalled that many of you are calling me a racist. You act as if I am unaware that black people are being raped and exploited by the white power structure. That is something I am trying to stop, and it is insulting that you think I am just another brainwashed idiot. I do NOT at all sympathize with white people. I DO sympathize with black people. What I do NOT sympathize with is a group that advocates racial segregation.

I used to think black nationalists were the "good guys" too. But if they are the good guys, why can they not transcend the issue of race and advocate working together as HUMANS, not as just black people and white people. How do you not understand this concept?

[Remus Bleys]

I used to think black nationalists were the "good guys" too. But if they are the good guys, why can they not transcend the issue of race and advocate working together as HUMANS, not as just black people and white people. How do you not understand this concept Given the time period, and even in today's world, it may be better for black people to live apart. Obviously I don't agree (I have a mixed family), but certain conditions may lead one to think that, because at least then they wouldn't face racism on a day to day basis.

[Sotionov]

The only good things that came out of leninism and it's offspring is one- it was empirically proved that Bakunin was right about marxist hierarchical movement "fighting capitalism" would only end up as state-capitalism, and two- anarchist know from the example of Ukraine and Spain that they should trust leninists or ally with them.

[Rugged Collectivist]

Okay, from reading your posts, I will admit one thing. I did not think about the gender-neutral aspect of the word comrade, and I DO respect the choice to not identify as any particular gender.

As for the black nationalism argument. I am actually appalled that many of you are calling me a racist. You act as if I am unaware that black people are being raped and exploited by the white power structure. That is something I am trying to stop, and it is insulting that you think I am just another brainwashed idiot. I do NOT at all sympathize with white people. I DO sympathize with black people. What I do NOT sympathize with is a group that advocates racial segregation.

I used to think black nationalists were the "good guys" too. But if they are the good guys, why can they not transcend the issue of race and advocate working together as HUMANS, not as just black people and white people. How do you not understand this concept?

Black nationalism means different things to different people and some groups that fall under that umbrella are a hell of a lot more sympathetic than others.

[TheEmancipator]

what does this have to do with what I suggested? I said learn from the past don't ignore it...

They clearly haven't learned from the past if they're supporting systems that historically failed.

[Ace High]

I think the sympathy with black nationalists is a matter of two issues.

1. Black people are obviously economically and socially oppressed under the white power structure, giving whites an unfair privilege. So it seems that we can sort of "let it slide" even if it is a movement calling for immediate racial segregation.

2. Black nationalists seem to adopt a Marxist model within their group so it is easy for us to admire that. But they don't quite get Marxism if they call for segregation and a black ethnic state. White nationalists adopt a fascist model generally, so we immediately feel we should support black nationalism to sort of counter that.

But we have to realize that you cannot form a group based on racial segregation and the creation of an ethnic state based entirely on the color of your skin. A unified socialist Africa would be wonderful and I would love to help see that through and get African resources back to the PEOPLE. But not on a basis of membership to a racial group.

[#FF0000]

White nationalists adopt a fascist model generally, so we immediately feel we should support black nationalism to sort of counter that.

There certainly can't be a "socialist model" considering white nationalism is just white supremacy. Black nationalism is about self-determination for black people in America, whereas there is no need whatsoever for "white nationalism" as white people have "self determination" (and, you know, "supremacy" in our society).


But we have to realize that you cannot form a group based on racial segregation and the creation of an ethnic state based entirely on the color of your skin. A unified socialist Africa would be wonderful and I would love to help see that through and get African resources back to the PEOPLE. But not on a basis of membership to a racial group.

That isn't what Black Nationalists wanted. At least, not black nationalists in the Marxist tradition.

[Ace High]

There certainly can't be a "socialist model" considering white nationalism is just white supremacy. Black nationalism is about self-determination for black people in America, whereas there is no need whatsoever for "white nationalism" as white people have "self determination" (and, you know, "supremacy" in our society).



That isn't what Black Nationalists wanted. At least, not black nationalists in the Marxist tradition.

I have seen posters on black nationalist forums. Trust me, the creation of a black-only nation in Africa is their goal. Also, does nobody see the problem in supporting a group with the word NATIONALISM in their name?

[Nevsky]

If that is the case then why do the MLs support failed regimes?

Our premise is not to support failed regimes but to defend the legacy of actually existed socialist states whose historical example is taken as inspiration for the new struggle for socialism here and now. How can we fight for socialism when we have things like "socialism never existed, Stalin and Mao were state capitalists etc." in mind? If that was true, I'd stop believing in marxism and call it utopian. By the way, USSR under Stalin was far from "failed". As I said a thousand times on this forum, the SU's economy grew so strong that western capitalist nations were forced to introduce social measures to compete with the new socialist superpower.

[Jimmie Higgins]

5. Black nationalism. Why do leftists these days associate themselves with black nationalists? They are just as bad as white nationalists, you realize this right? Just because black people are systematically oppressed does not mean we should support racist organizations. The black movements today are NOT the same as the ones from the 60s and 70s. These are NOT the black panthers. The black panthers were not nationalists, just black people protecting themselves from police brutality and unfair prosecution that directly targeted them and that was okay. But TODAY, black nationalists view whites just as white nationalists views blacks, and that is a bad thing isn't it? After all, we know white nationalism is a bad thing. SO let's admit that black nationalism is too.

Why is white nationalism bad? Because overall it seeks to reinforce (or extend) an existing racial inequality in society and in labor too; it seeks to re-enforce the divisions our ruling class uses to manage the population. What is black nationalism in essence: an attempt to end those same inequalities. Within that general framework there are tons of different approaches, some more useful or practical than others in the abstract or in specific goals. There are various different approaches for white nationalism too, but these approaches are all aimed at continuing the existing inequalities and oppression.

The Black Panthers were nationalist and part of a broader black nationalist movement - the part that had a better class framework in identifying international capitalism as the source of both colonialism/imperialism abroad and racism and exploitation at home. So they were able to criticize the middle class reformists and black nationalists from that position, but their socialism was connected to black nationalism... in some local branches, they were more nationalist than socialist even if the leadership tended to be more socialist, pan-africanist in outlook. So their socialism is not in opposition to black nationalism, really it was more of a political maturing of black nationalism that created more space for a more militiant and class-oriented version to emerge.

This is why it would be wrong to have an overly-deterministic or hostile stance towards black nationalism in general. We should definately be critical of seperatism or black nationalism with an explicit "black-capitalist" elite orientation, but I think we should do so on the basis that these approaches are completely incapable of solving oppression or racial inequality. Because black nationalism at it's base is an attempt to figue out how to counter white nationalism, it can develop in ways that actually bring it (or at least factions) towards radical conclusions. White Nationalists will never develop class militancy or a socialist approach - not until they break from and reject white nationalism.

[#FF0000]

I have seen posters on black nationalist forums. Trust me, the creation of a black-only nation in Africa is their goal.

"Trust me I've seen people on the internet say things"

Yo people on the internet believe a lot of dumb shit, and like I said, there are a lot of different sorts of black nationalists. You have the weirdo dummies who buy into some Black Israelite nonsense, and then there's Black Nationalists who take a Marxist line and who are much less ridiculous but still wrong. They are not the same, and lumping them together, let alone trying to say there is any sort of parallel between them and white supremacists is just lazy.

EDIT: also black nationalists (historically -- black nationalists barely exist anymore) in America wanted to establish an independent nation in the "black belt" of the south (from about Louisiana to Virginia)


Also, does nobody see the problem in supporting a group with the word NATIONALISM in their name?There were a lot of national liberation/anti-colonialist groups that were explicitly socialist/communist. The ETA, some iterations of the IRA, the PFLP, the PKK. I mean, I think their politics were pretty awful and all that but I think saying "but it's nationalism it's wrong!!!!!" is a pretty shitty way of engaging the whole national liberation question. And if you opposed black nationalism on those grounds rather than the "they are just like white nationalsits" line, you'd sound a whole lot less silly

[#FF0000]

How can we fight for socialism when we have things like "socialism never existed, Stalin and Mao were state capitalists etc." in mind?

With a whole lot more clarity, for one.


If that was true, I'd stop believing in marxism and call it utopian.

So if there was never a state that called itself "socialist" at some point, you'd call Marxism utopian?


By the way, USSR under Stalin was far from "failed". As I said a thousand times on this forum, the SU's economy grew so strong that western capitalist nations were forced to introduce social measures to compete with the new socialist superpower.

Becoming better capitalists than the capitalists sure ain't succeeding, dogg.

[TheEmancipator]

Our premise is not to support failed regimes but to defend the legacy of actually existed socialist states whose historical example is taken as inspiration for the new struggle for socialism here and now. How can we fight for socialism when we have things like "socialism never existed, Stalin and Mao were state capitalists etc." in mind? If that was true, I'd stop believing in marxism and call it utopian. By the way, USSR under Stalin was far from "failed". As I said a thousand times on this forum, the SU's economy grew so strong that western capitalist nations were forced to introduce social measures to compete with the new socialist superpower.

Simple question, Nevsky, what happened to all these "socialist" states? What do they look like now? What legacy did blameless Uncle Joe leave behind?


That's why I don't want to emulate the past. Which is anyway very reactionary. Almost all the the failed communist state in the 20th Century were Marxist-Leninist, and they let down the proleteriat. Big time. Why should we follow Lenin's theory, designed for early 20th century Russia anyway, again?

[Nevsky]

Straw man arguments everywhere. Again, I believe that it is strongly counterproductive for today's struggle to completely negate the existance of historical socialism. We cannot move on without bothering to draw the correct conclusions from the past. Sorry but it's just incredibly lazy to look at the socialist past and simply point the finger at supposedly "capitalist" countries.

[Philosophos]

They clearly haven't learned from the past if they're supporting systems that historically failed.

Ummm... that's their problem I guess?

[TheEmancipator]

Straw man arguments everywhere. Again, I believe that it is strongly counterproductive for today's struggle to completely negate the existance of historical socialism. We cannot move on without bothering to draw the correct conclusions from the past. Sorry but it's just incredibly lazy to look at the socialist past and simply point the finger at supposedly "capitalist" countries.

I agree Nevsky, which is why I look at successful socialist "entities" like Anarchist Catalonia, very early Soviet Russia, Makhnovite Free Territory, and the Paris Commune, and take great inspiration from them.

Note however than none of these entities were a) nations or b) Marxist-Leninist.

So again, Nevsky, why should I follow Marxist-Leninism? You're a self-proclaimed Marxist-Leninist, why? Is it just so you can defend Stalin's legacy? How's Russia these days?

[Nevsky]

I agree Nevsky, which is why I look at successful socialist "entities" like Anarchist Catalonia, very early Soviet Russia, Makhnovite Free Territory, and the Paris Commune, and take great inspiration from them.

Note however than none of these entities were a) nations or b) Marxist-Leninist.

So again, Nevsky, why should I follow Marxist-Leninism? You're a self-proclaimed Marxist-Leninist, why? Is it just so you can defend Stalin's legacy? How's Russia these days?

Paris Commune - crushed by reaction, Anarchist Catalonia - crushed by fascists, early Soviet Russia - became "stalinist" Soviet Russia, Makhnovite Free Territory - only existed for very short time, couldn't resist bolshevism in the end.

Comrade, there is nothing wrong with taking inspiration from these entities. In fact, they are inspirational to me as well. But I also agree with Marx' theses after the experience of failed Paris Commune and most of leninist theory. Hence, I focus more on understanding and defending Marxism-Leninism. Also due to the fact that anti-stalinism is one of the biggest factors which a) divides the international left and b) dissociates leftists from historical examples of practical application of marxist theory.

[Dropdead]

Paris Commune - crushed by reaction, Anarchist Catalonia - crushed by fascists, early Soviet Russia - became "stalinist" Soviet Russia, Makhnovite Free Territory - only existed for very short time, couldn't resist bolshevism in the end.

Comrade, there is nothing wrong with taking inspiration from these entities. In fact, they are inspirational to me as well. But I also agree with Marx' theses after the experience of failed Paris Commune and most of leninist theory. Hence, I focus more on understanding and defending Marxism-Leninism. Also due to the fact that anti-stalinism is one of the biggest factors which a) divides the international left and b) dissociates leftists from historical examples of practical application of marxist theory.

For a good reason. Why didn't you anarchists let stalinists lead?

[TheEmancipator]

Paris Commune - crushed by reaction, Anarchist Catalonia - crushed by fascists, early Soviet Russia - became "stalinist" Soviet Russia, Makhnovite Free Territory - only existed for very short time, couldn't resist bolshevism in the end.

What is your point? They are examples of early socialism, with collectivization instead of nationalisation and no bourgeois imperialist foreign policy. Marxist-Leninist nation-states are not.

Note that the last two were foiled by Marxist-Leninists...hmm...what's your defense of that?


Comrade, there is nothing wrong with taking inspiration from these entities. In fact, they are inspirational to me as well. But I also agree with Marx' theses after the experience of failed Paris Commune and most of leninist theory. Hence, I focus more on understanding and defending Marxism-Leninism. Also due to the fact that anti-stalinism is one of the biggest factors which a) divides the international left and b) dissociates leftists from historical examples of practical application of marxist theory.That's nice. You still have only vaguely answered my question. Why should I support an ideology that has left a legacy of (state) capitalism in respective Marxist-Leninist states and that has proven historically to be an unmitigated failure, unless you count Cuba and North Korea as successful regimes?


For a good reason. Why didn't you anarchists let stalinists lead?

The Syndicalists didn't want to exchange one authoritarian inevitability for another. A choice between a counter-revolutionary and...Franco was not the kind of choice they wanted to make. Stalin was growing so jealous and worried of the real socialism on display in Catalonia he ordered the land reforms to stop!

[D-A-C]

I am writing this thread because I see a bit of a disturbing trend among our community that actually could bring harm and mockery to our cause. The trend I speak of is the tendency for current leftists to be stuck in the past and obsessively admiring such people as Stalin and Mao. Here are my biggest pet peeves:

1. Stalin and Mao. Why do we consider them as one of us? The banking cartels and capitalists are laughing at us for this because guess what? Capitalists FUNDED the Bolsheviks. Many factories in Stalinist Russia were outsourced their by big business interests. David Rockefeller called the Chinese famine under Mao one of the greatest experiments in human history! Why did capitalists fund and support Maoist China and the Bolsheviks? Because of two things. Population control and a catalyst for endless wars to make profit for the capitalist elites. But I will discuss that in some other thread some other day.

It's not a question of whether or not they are 'one of us' the fact of the matter is that both those historical figures played an important part in the history of actually existing socialism.

You also do an extreme disservice to the cause of Marxism by simply dismissing both of them from the ranks of true Marxists.

First of all your whole idea that capitalists are somehow laughing at us for continuing to debate, discuss and refer to either figure is itself quite laughable. They don't meet the second Sunday of every month and have a good laugh at their super secret meetings where they discuss their sinister world plans.

Just because their are links between either figure and Capitalism is neither here nor there unless it is part of a theoretical discussion as to the proper revolutionary course that needs to be undertaken in instances when actually existing Socialism should appear. If your really suggesting that either Mao or Stalin sympathized in any way with Capitalism, you really do need to brush up on your history, because both of them for all their faults, deeply despised Capitalism.

The fact is we need to analyse both figures and their historical conditions of existence in order to understand what they did wrong and what they did right. Also, it would be a severe mistake to underestimate the theoretical achievements of Mao OR Stalin. You don't become supreme leaders of the two international communist movements (after the sino-soviet split) by not properly understanding Marxist theory. Now, in the case of Stalin in particular, his interpretations and assumptions may ultimately prove to be wrong alot of the time, but both contributed an awful lot to Marxism not only theoretically, but also by devoting their entire lives to the cause of constructing actually existing socialism.


2. Differentiating a fascist mockery of Marxism from actual Marxism. Any "leftist" who thinks Stalinism represents anything close to leftist socialism or Marxism needs to do some serious reflection. Stalin created a class of military elites to subjugate and feed off of the proletariat. Making Russia an industrialized nation and relocating people to collective farms is NOT communism or socialism. It is MERCANTILISM. It is a modern version of a monarchy. He made a mockery of Marxism by using the red flag to represent an ultra nationalist terror state. And so did Mao and the Kims.

I would argue that your interpretation of the Stalinist Soviet Union and Stalinism are deeply flawed.

Stalin didn't create military elites in any shape, form or fashion and actually spent much of the 1930's systematically executing all of the Elites within the Soviet Union. Of all the various hypothesis for why this event occurred, the one I favour the most is that; Stalin's purges where a reflex to the fact that a new capitalist class was entrenching itself within the hierarchy of the Soviet Union and so the purges where actually an attempt to get rid of 'new' Capitalists without addressing the problem of the structural relations that were causing their creation within Soviet society.

Also, this point contradicts some of your ideas because if people are confusing Stalinism with Marxism proper, then surely we have to undertake a thorough examination of Stalin and Stalinism to properly untangle the two. But apparently people focusing on Stalin and this or that strategy associated with him or against him is problematic?



3. The word "comrade." Really? Are we seriously using that word to refer to each other? It is a great word, don't get me wrong, but it makes us look a bit ridiculous doesn't it? Calling each other "comrade" is going to make us seem like coffee shop hipsters with Che Guevara t shirts. Just because the Bolsheviks made heavy use of the word does not mean that we should mimic them for the sake of sentiment. Call each other brothers and sisters for all I care, but let's drop this whole comrade business.

Its only ridiculous if we let people tell us that its ridiculous. By caring what others think of us we let them control how we conduct ourselves.

If everyone in the world openly and honestly called their fellow brothers and sisters in the struggle for freedom 'Comrade' then who would say it was stupid? And even if they did ... what would we care? Hundreds of thousands, even millions of people would be addressing each other with a word that means equality and comraderie in the battle against oppression.

The fact that Capitalism takes things and sells them back to us, so T-Shirts depicting Che or other Communist slogans is part of how the system functions. As long as we don't let it or anyone dictate what is or isn't fashionable, then ultimately, what do we care what the chattering classes think?

When Revolution ultimately comes they wont be laughing anymore.



4. Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism. Some people have come to believe that adopting the specific strategies of these people and obsessing over what their personal beliefs might have been can help our cause. First of all, Stalin and Mao were ultra nationalist sociopaths. Lenin was admirable, and he should be a figure we respect, but come on. Leninism? He developed his strategy specifically for Russia. Let us now develop our OWN strategy for the modern age.

You don't develop theories in a vaccum. Whilst it is true that we have to create new ideas to deal with new revolutionary situations and oppportunities, we do so by looking to the past and working forwards.

Should we abandon Marx? I think not.

So why should we abandon some of the lessons, writings and debates of some of the most important Marxists that ever lived?

Again, your analysis of Mao and Stalin is in dire need of improvement as those kind of caricatures do nothing to aid in dispelling the negative legacies of either figure, and also fail to take into account the lessons that we can learn from the both of them

Again, don't mistake either for being stupid. Mao made some important theoretical contributions to Marxism and his writings and practices influenced many Western intellectuals throughout the 1960's and 1970's. He really was very smart and I'm pretty sure his writings on Guerilla Warfare are still studied even in the U.S.A.

If you want new theories for today, look to the old ones, see what you think they did wrong and put forward a new theory based off of that. But you don't just scrap nearly 100 years of work because its fashionable to dislike the people who wrote or practiced the ideas.


5. Black nationalism. Why do leftists these days associate themselves with black nationalists? They are just as bad as white nationalists, you realize this right? Just because black people are systematically oppressed does not mean we should support racist organizations. The black movements today are NOT the same as the ones from the 60s and 70s. These are NOT the black panthers. The black panthers were not nationalists, just black people protecting themselves from police brutality and unfair prosecution that directly targeted them and that was okay. But TODAY, black nationalists view whites just as white nationalists views blacks, and that is a bad thing isn't it? After all, we know white nationalism is a bad thing. SO let's admit that black nationalism is too..

I'm not familiar with the problem.

Of a more pressing concern, I feel, is how the Right paints us as the ones allowing mass immigration because we are all 'Cultural Marxists' who hate White, European, Male history, which given who and what Marx was would be quite difficult lol. Also, its due to the Rights need for cheap labour and to ensure smooth social relations towards new immigrants cheaply undercutting the native working classes that spawned alot of those sorts of problems. But I digress.

The fact is that the media loves to represent the Left as nutcases who do stupid things. Unless you have concrete analysis of a Leftist Organization actively enaging in relations with Racist Black Movements that are Anti-White, then there isn't much to discuss from my perspective.

However I will say that some people believe in the old adage 'my enemy's enemy is my friend' and so tolerate short term alliances in the pursuit of social justice, even with highly unsuitable types of people.


Those are the main things we need to change about our movement. We wonder why nobody takes us seriously. Well, let us do some reflection and improvement and make sure we alienate those who bring shame to our movement and those who lump us in as a bunch of angry teenagers living in the past who just want to mimic what they think "the left" should be based on their portrayal in the media. Let's make our own destiny in today's age.

'In your opinion' that's the reason nobody takes us seriously.

I would argue that the Right since the middle of the 1970's and in some cases even earlier has been hugely successful in rolling back the gains of the Left over the previous decades. The Left has largely been missing proper leadership and revolutionary theories capable of dealing with the circumstance of the current capitalist conjuncture.

However, Lenin famously said that it's easy to be a revolutionary in a revolutionary situation, but its much harder to be one when circumstances turn against revolutionary action and agitation.

But he also famously said that Marxism is like a block of steel and is impenetrable because it is all powerful because it is true.

Who cares that the Right mocks us for now? We have to carry on educating ourselves, create organizations for the emancipation of working men and women everywhere and continue to agitate against the Capitalist social order.

It may take us us 100 or even 1000 years, but the contradictions of Capitalism are such that as long as there is a single sole remaining socialist willing to struggle for the freedom of the oppressed you can guarantee that, to paraphrase Khrushchev;

Whether they like it or not, history is on our side, we will crush them.

I hope that helps :grin:

[#FF0000]

Straw man arguments everywhere.

Point them out.


Again, I believe that it is strongly counterproductive for today's struggle to completely negate the existance of historical socialism.

We aren't doing anything to negate it's existence -- it simply never was. Every socialist revolution was an abject failure so far.


We cannot move on without bothering to draw the correct conclusions from the past.

I agree and we can't do that while trying to look at the USSR and China with rose-tinted glasses. Even Marxist-Leninists ought to be ruthlessly critical of it.

[Revenant]

IMO the OP is a blatant attack on "Leftism", divide and rule.;)1

[Nevsky]

Point them out.



We aren't doing anything to negate it's existence -- it simply never was. Every socialist revolution was an abject failure so far.


I agree and we can't do that while trying to look at the USSR and China with rose-tinted glasses. Even Marxist-Leninists ought to be ruthlessly critical of it.

1. That M-Ls blindly follow the line of Stalin/Mao and their supposed aim to recreate the exact same policies carried out by them once again.

2. This is just something you claim withouth any solid base. How does the fact that the late, revisionist infested USSR collapsed at the end of the 20th century prove that there wasn't socialism back in the Lenin/Stalin era?

3. Being critical of the USSR and PRC is nothing knew to M-Ls. Not in the slightest. I made a thread to criticise soviet state censorship but somehow everyone turned 100% anti-dissident soviet apologist there and user khad developed profound hate towards me with no apparent reason. Anyway, being critical of actually existing socialism is not the same as denying its existance. I am part of the former group and believe that we shouldn't flush leninism down the toilet because of historical disappointments.

[Ace High]

IMO the OP is a blatant attack on "Leftism", divide and rule.;)1

My friend, if you think that, then you seriously need some lessons in reading comprehension. Perhaps you should go back and read my posts on this forum a bit more clearly. How am I attacking our movement by trying to make improvements to it? Am I not allowed to criticize it? Can we not admit that we have flaws?

[Ace High]

Anyway, I do appreciate the continuing of posting. Mainly, people are angered that I am bashing Stalin and Mao which is to be expected. It's sad that people think in order to hold leftist views, you must worship these two like idols. The fact that people get so upset when I denounce them and accuse me of dividing the movement, proves by itself that these people need to stop being worshiped.

[RadioRaheem84]

How come only capitalists are allowed to have a nuanced approach to their countries? They say capitalism brought forth a development up to par with excellence and taking backwards land into the new century? It only took them millions of lives through colonialism, wars, imperialism, slavery, malnutrition, disease, etc. And this continues to the present day with sex trade, sweatshop labor, IMF austerity, food shortages, economic crises, wars over natural resources, etc.

Yet, they can talk about the good that capitalist nations have done by developing once backwards lands 400 years ago, and European nations who never saw development until the mid 20th century.

For some reason capitalism's history starts at 1945. Yet, they can discuss the good and the bad. They can talk about the subtle nuances that come with each historical development of each capitalist nation and feel totally vindicated from the terrible history.

If you were to bring up the attrocities of slavery, genocide against native populations, Jim Crow, wage slavery, robber barons and child labor, they will just look at you as though your crazy because that is so far removed from today that it makes no difference in tying that to the present and the US's historical development. What matters is how the country looks now (which is worse off than even it's golden era).

Yet, with the USSR or any ML nation everything is made to look as though it was a complete and total failure with no redeeming qualities. You're a kook if you talk about how those nations were backward feudal or fascist protectorates before the communists who advanced them into the stratosphere by comparison. That doesn't matter, what matters is that they were closed in dictatorships. Never mind that the reason for their closed in governments was thier limitations due to total political and economic isolation and not knowing one day of peace since their inception. Never mind that any moment of weakness would be their last because not only would it mean terrorism, economic blockade, total war or counter revolution, it would also mean the total dissolution of their nation, which happened in the late 80s. Which every penny of military and intelligence money and muscle was mustered by the capitalist nations to defeat and destroy the communist countries. Some managed to maintain some semblance of dignity like Cuba but others fell into total monstrous degenerated to the point of banality like North Korea.

Each capitalist country is afforded it's own say and it's own explanation for it's historical development including a plethora of excuses of why it's still under development. Yet, each communist nation is not allowed it's own story and history of development but instead is cast under the same communist banner. If Pol Pot killed a million people than that means Castro must have too or at least might some day because, "ya know, he's a commie".

So all this banter from liberals and sell out leftists alike is really just a fear of being ridiculed and called irrelevant by people who are clearly bias and clearly most assuredly de-fucking-lusional about the countries and the system they defend.

[#FF0000]

2. This is just something you claim withouth any solid base. How does the fact that the late, revisionist infested USSR collapsed at the end of the 20th century prove that there wasn't socialism back in the Lenin/Stalin era?

wait

wait wait wait wait wait wait

you think that's what the "state capitalist" argument is?

edit: this isn't just something I "claim" but is something I've argued in the past. This just isn't the thread for it and tbh I'm tired of having that same argument over and over again, especially when the rebuttal is always the same weak nonsense.

[connoros]

Anyway, I do appreciate the continuing of posting. Mainly, people are angered that I am bashing Stalin and Mao which is to be expected. It's sad that people think in order to hold leftist views, you must worship these two like idols. The fact that people get so upset when I denounce them and accuse me of dividing the movement, proves by itself that these people need to stop being worshiped.

Consider:


Being critical of the USSR and PRC is nothing knew to M-Ls. Not in the slightest. [...] Anyway, being critical of actually existing socialism is not the same as denying its existance. I am part of the former group and believe that we shouldn't flush leninism down the toilet because of historical disappointments.

Defending the accomplishments made in the times of Stalin and Mao and the theoretical contributions of those individuals, however questionable they may be in Mao's case, is not the same as "worshipping" either. Simply because you've met with argument because you ever so courageously "denounced" Stalin (like the rest of the herd) is less an indication that Stalin is being "worshipped" as much as it is that his contributions to socialism are being downplayed by the people who could most benefit from their memory, i.e. leftists. That isn't to say there is nothing to criticize about Stalin. In his time, sodomy laws remained on the books, and, while the question remains as to the validity of the source, I was encountered a quote in which Stalin condoned the rape of women by soldiers. Do you think I, as a Marxist-Leninist, embrace these ideas? Or do I embrace the ideas that ended homelessness and unemployment, electrified entire nations, abolished illiteracy, provided education and health care to all, and beat back the fascist war machine? And can you honestly say that the ideology you might champion yourself has any kind of comparable legacy? That's why some leftists need so desperately to "denounce" these accomplishments by formulating pedantic arguments as to why they somehow don't count as progress; to admit otherwise is to admit their ideologies' own historical impotence.

[Ace High]

Ok, for those defending Stalin and Mao:

From a basis of HUMAN RIGHTS (do not say "they made big strong country and threw the capitalists in the gulag" or something), please defend their actions and tell me how they improved human rights in their country.

[connoros]

Ok, for those defending Stalin and Mao:

From a basis of HUMAN RIGHTS (do not say "they made big strong country and threw the capitalists in the gulag" or something), please defend their actions and tell me how they improved human rights in their country.

National electrification, complete literacy, end of homelessness and unemployment, accessible education and health care for all, progress towards income equality, expanding the rights and role of women in society (first woman in space!), and, of course, defeating the Nazis.

[#FF0000]

National electrification, complete literacy, end of homelessness and unemployment, accessible education and health care for all, progress towards income equality, expanding the rights and role of women in society (first woman in space!), and, of course, defeating the Nazis.

A lot of capitalist countries have made stellar progress in these areas, surpassing even the USSR by far.


Ok, for those defending Stalin and Mao:

From a basis of HUMAN RIGHTS (do not say "they made big strong country and threw the capitalists in the gulag" or something), please defend their actions and tell me how they improved human rights in their country.

That's not a very good way to look at things, imo. Forcibly taking away the property of the entire capitalist class and any sort of revolutionary violence could/can/will be considered a "human rights violation". I'm not saying summary executions and torture are neat things that we should be doing because lol fuck bourgeois morality but...

[#FF0000]

Defending the accomplishments made in the times of Stalin and Mao

Expounding on those accomplishments doesn't help us now and doesn't help us to understand these societies. Replace that with ruthless and unflinching criticism.

[Ace High]

A lot of capitalist countries have made stellar progress in these areas, surpassing even the USSR by far.



That's not a very good way to look at things, imo. Forcibly taking away the property of the entire capitalist class and any sort of revolutionary violence could/can/will be considered a "human rights violation". I'm not saying summary executions and torture are neat things that we should be doing because lol fuck bourgeois morality but...

Ok, yeah you have a point there. But I think we on this forum can distinguish revolutionary actions from human rights violations. But you're right over all, I should make a better criteria. However, personally, I do look at the achievements of a territory based on their human rights record.

[Broviet Union]

I'd kind of like to see some Marxist-Leninist apologetics that doesn't boil down to "Next time we won't let the Revisionists take over!"

[connoros]

A lot of capitalist countries have made stellar progress in these areas, surpassing even the USSR by far.

Indeed. Are we to "denounce" those endeavors that have objectively improved conditions for the exploited classes or otherwise laid the foundations for socialism?


Expounding on those accomplishments doesn't help us now and doesn't help us to understand these societies. Replace that with ruthless and unflinching criticism.

But neither does discounting those accomplishments entirely. Ruthless criticism is precise and unflinching criticism, not wanton denunciation.

[D-A-C]

Ok, yeah you have a point there. But I think we on this forum can distinguish revolutionary actions from human rights violations. But you're right over all, I should make a better criteria. However, personally, I do look at the achievements of a territory based on their human rights record.

You judge the actions of a territory through its human rights record? What?

That isn't exactly a very Marxist set of criteria your workng with of you ask me.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but a very strong argument could be made, that contemporary notions of 'Human Rights' are the pseudo notions of Liberal Capitalism.

This is just a quote from a wiki, I'm sure more formal textual examples can be found, but Slavoj Zizek states:

"liberal attitudes towards the other are characterized both by respect for otherness, openness to it, and an obsessive fear of harassment. In short, the other is welcomed insofar as its presence is not intrusive, insofar as it is not really the other. Tolerance thus coincides with its opposite. My duty to be tolerant towards the other effectively means that I should not get too close to him or her, not intrude into his space—in short, that I should respect his intolerance towards my over-proximity. This is increasingly emerging as the central human right of advanced capitalist society: the right not to be 'harassed', that is, to be kept at a safe distance from others." and "universal human rights are effectively the right of white, male property-owners to exchange freely on the market, exploit workers and women, and exert political domination."

In short, my own opinion is that I down give a damn about any nations Human Rights record. Instead, I care about their system of social organization.

Sure to some people living in a fascist state is no joke compared to say, the more tolerable surroundings of America, yet both at their core are organized on an economic system of oppression ... Capitalism. Better the more benign and less seen oppression within America and the West than the more open repression of places like Russia, Turkey etc? I say both are equally in need of Socialist Revolution.

With that in mind, where exactly are these lists of Human Rights we are all supposed to have? Who designed them? For what reason? How are they implemented and enforced? etc, etc.

You should read an excellent work called Liberalism: A Counter History by Domenico Losurd.

That work is an excellent critqiue of the rise of Liberalism and shows how it was historically linked to some of the worst offenses of Man against his fellow Man.

[TheEmancipator]

3. Being critical of the USSR and PRC is nothing knew to M-Ls. Not in the slightest. I made a thread to criticise soviet state censorship but somehow everyone turned 100% anti-dissident soviet apologist there and user khad developed profound hate towards me with no apparent reason. Anyway, being critical of actually existing socialism is not the same as denying its existance. I am part of the former group and believe that we shouldn't flush leninism down the toilet because of historical disappointments.

What gets me is the way M-Ls insist on "flushing" other ideologies down the toilet as you so rightly put. Part of your authoritarian agenda in your tendency is to suppress any Troskyite, Left Communist, Anarchist or even other M-L tendencies. Your defense of Stalin's purges for example, or the assimilation of Makhnovchina and general Russian expansionism displayed by the "SU" (Bolshevik Russia) all in the name of "Social Imperialism". Uncle Joe is totally innocent though, right!

You are the intolerant, close minded ones here, not us.

[connoros]

I'd kind of like to see some Marxist-Leninist apologetics that doesn't boil down to "Next time we won't let the Revisionists take over!"

I'd hate to say it, but a lot of my comrade Leninists don't seem to have much more to go on besides somehow stopping revisionism from infiltrating Communist politics. The key to the survival of socialism is the end of capitalism; the pressures put on workers' states by anti-socialist forces around the world necessarily force upon them a highly militant character. As a consequence, one of the difficulties in party politics becomes a move away from military-administrative politics to democratic-persuasive politics, something the "Big S" himself was pursuing in the Union. The key to not allowing the take over of revisionism, then, is balancing the defense of the gains of the revolution with progressive democratization.

[TheEmancipator]

Do they not realise that Marxist-Leninism itself is a revisionist ideology designed for Feudal Russia by comrade Lenin? Why is "revisionism" in the Marxist sense of the word a problem considering the different material conditions in different states.

[Lenin1986]

I don't think Stalin and Mao should be just wrote off. I think they should be studied by all revolutionary's. Study their faults, mistakes but also their achievements. Many things they done were wrong but they done some good also. It would be wrong and a waist to just write them off.

[RadioRaheem84]

You judge the actions of a territory through its human rights record? What?

That isn't exactly a very Marxist set of criteria your workng with of you ask me.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but a very strong argument could be made, that contemporary notions of 'Human Rights' are the pseudo notions of Liberal Capitalism.

This is just a quote from a wiki, I'm sure more formal textual examples can be found, but Slavoj Zizek states:

"liberal attitudes towards the other are characterized both by respect for otherness, openness to it, and an obsessive fear of harassment. In short, the other is welcomed insofar as its presence is not intrusive, insofar as it is not really the other. Tolerance thus coincides with its opposite. My duty to be tolerant towards the other effectively means that I should not get too close to him or her, not intrude into his space—in short, that I should respect his intolerance towards my over-proximity. This is increasingly emerging as the central human right of advanced capitalist society: the right not to be 'harassed', that is, to be kept at a safe distance from others." and "universal human rights are effectively the right of white, male property-owners to exchange freely on the market, exploit workers and women, and exert political domination."

In short, my own opinion is that I down give a damn about any nations Human Rights record. Instead, I care about their system of social organization.

Sure to some people living in a fascist state is no joke compared to say, the more tolerable surroundings of America, yet both at their core are organized on an economic system of oppression ... Capitalism. Better the more benign and less seen oppression within America and the West than the more open repression of places like Russia, Turkey etc? I say both are equally in need of Socialist Revolution.

With that in mind, where exactly are these lists of Human Rights we are all supposed to have? Who designed them? For what reason? How are they implemented and enforced? etc, etc.

You should read an excellent work called Liberalism: A Counter History by Domenico Losurd.

That work is an excellent critqiue of the rise of Liberalism and shows how it was historically linked to some of the worst offenses of Man against his fellow Man.

Zizek for the win. Excellent find, comrade.

[RadioRaheem84]

I don't think Stalin and Mao should be just wrote off. I think they should be studied by all revolutionary's. Study their faults, mistakes but also their achievements. Many things they done were wrong but they done some good also. It would be wrong and a waist to just write them off.

Fucking capitalist apologists exhat the Greeks to no end because of Athenian democracy, even though Greece was more of a feudal Bushido code war like place than one where everyone wore togas and talked about philosophy all day. Same with Rome, they love to talk about the Roman Republic.

We have what all ethnocentric liberal arts departments push on us is The Classics, which are good works nonetheless extol the virtures of Western Civ.

Western Civ, liberalism and yes even capitalism were progresive forces of the past that modernized and took Europe and hell the world out of feudalism. That time is over of course but to capitalist apologisst that time is still here and they still extol the virtues of past regimes.

Again, I say that it is unfair that the bourgeoise get to have such a nuanced view of history where as we are boxed into super rigid standards.

As Marxists we should look at the bad and the good of the past regimes, not chuck them out like bad meat and wipe our hands clean. If this was a blood loss match, which is despicable but capitalists love doing it, we would have less blood on our hands than capitalist nations.

[Ace High]

You judge the actions of a territory through its human rights record? What?

That isn't exactly a very Marxist set of criteria your workng with of you ask me.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but a very strong argument could be made, that contemporary notions of 'Human Rights' are the pseudo notions of Liberal Capitalism.

This is just a quote from a wiki, I'm sure more formal textual examples can be found, but Slavoj Zizek states:

"liberal attitudes towards the other are characterized both by respect for otherness, openness to it, and an obsessive fear of harassment. In short, the other is welcomed insofar as its presence is not intrusive, insofar as it is not really the other. Tolerance thus coincides with its opposite. My duty to be tolerant towards the other effectively means that I should not get too close to him or her, not intrude into his space—in short, that I should respect his intolerance towards my over-proximity. This is increasingly emerging as the central human right of advanced capitalist society: the right not to be 'harassed', that is, to be kept at a safe distance from others." and "universal human rights are effectively the right of white, male property-owners to exchange freely on the market, exploit workers and women, and exert political domination."

In short, my own opinion is that I down give a damn about any nations Human Rights record. Instead, I care about their system of social organization.

Sure to some people living in a fascist state is no joke compared to say, the more tolerable surroundings of America, yet both at their core are organized on an economic system of oppression ... Capitalism. Better the more benign and less seen oppression within America and the West than the more open repression of places like Russia, Turkey etc? I say both are equally in need of Socialist Revolution.

With that in mind, where exactly are these lists of Human Rights we are all supposed to have? Who designed them? For what reason? How are they implemented and enforced? etc, etc.

You should read an excellent work called Liberalism: A Counter History by Domenico Losurd.

That work is an excellent critqiue of the rise of Liberalism and shows how it was historically linked to some of the worst offenses of Man against his fellow Man.

I'm honestly not sure I see your point. I mean I get the whole human rights thing isn't important to you and that the definitions of "human rights" are generally created in bias.

My point is simple. Human rights are providing housing, food, water, healthcare to the public free of charge and ensuring racial and gender equality. I mean that is generally what socialist societies are supposed to ensure, right? Or am I just very different than the rest of you in my beliefs?

[RadioRaheem84]

You're not wrong Ace High, but there are double standards in which human rights organizations impose on western nations and nations deemed as violators. Most of the time these organizations presuppose the logic of western nations and go by that to determine who is a violator and who is not.

Naomi Klein, a liberal, summed it up pretty well in her book The Shock Doctrine, I suggest you read it.

[Ace High]

You're not wrong Ace High, but there are double standards in which human rights organizations impose on western nations and nations deemed as violators. Most of the time these organizations presuppose the logic of western nations and go by that to determine who is a violator and who is not.

Naomi Klein, a liberal, summed it up pretty well in her book The Shock Doctrine, I suggest you read it.

Oh, I see exactly what you mean. Human rights watchers always bias it towards capitalist western nations as models. I mean, the United States is one of the very few Western nations to not even allow international voting watchers to make sure there is no voting fraud in elections, yet the US government forces other countries to bring in international voting watchers. So I totally understand you on that. So it's really up to us to discern the source of where we get our human rights criteria, and then do our own analysis and judgment from there. It's difficult, I know, but I feel that human rights should be of the utmost importance in a society attempting to achieve communism.

[RadioRaheem84]

Of course human rights should be a thing for communists to uphold but as the load term is framed now it is clearly couched in this "universal" language that presupposed western notions of rights. For instance, when a known agitator who is funded by the West to undermine the nation is exposed and is accordingly questioned or whatnot, the US turns it into a human rights thing. I mean this happens with Cuba all the time. A lot but not all Cuban dissidents tend to be opportunistic and accept monies from the US and exiled Cuban reactionaries to conduct campaigns inside Cuba. Cuba is also suffering an economic blockade, right wing exiled terrorism, and an economic situation that has them relying a lot on tourism and anything that could harm that including the image that it;s some totalitarian hell hole would need to be undermined. The Cuban government treats these dissidents with kid gloves by comparison to US client states but they are still lambasted as being on the same level as Turkey and Indonesia.

There is no individual examination of each county's historical development or current situation. They just all have to follow a blanket universal "self evident" set of human rights norms regardless of each nation's situation. And any violations are treated as universal violations, so Cuba gets lumped in as being the same as Nigeria in terms of violations.

The human rights watch groups do good work no doubt and I am not trying to undermine their work but that they really need some class analysis and some real deal leftists in there because I mean my god their liberal supposed ideaology free universal logic just makes them look too bias in my opinion.

To be fair they do document human rights violations in the US but it's always for some reason couched in terms that each violation is an isolated incident that must be corrected. There is never any discussion on the systemic problems of the county's structural governance or absues in private enterprises. Yet, other nations are clearly given the totalitarian run around.

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

I will ultimately concede that "socialist" regimes have in some way bumped their requisite populaces towards socialism - but only because in almost every case they took a feudal state/colony or pseido-colony and transformed it into an industrialised bourgeois state.

I will criticise their human rights abuses because I criticise all regimes willing to hurt, kill, unfairly imprison or otherwise inflict humiliation and suffering on people. There is no nation-state which is not guilty to some extent or another of these crimes.

I'll criticise them for being undemocratic, because really, all capitalist states are fundamentally democratic.

I concede that they started off with the belief that they were right (really, everyone believes that) and I'll even accept that most of them started out sincerely believing that they were creating true socialism. On that front, all of them failed.

However, the majority of them did manage to effectively modernise production and raise their populations, for the most part, out of ignorance, illiteracy and the lowest sorts of poverty. But look back a century and a half or so. That's what the revolutions in late 18th to mid 19th century Europe accomplished. In short, these revolutions were revolutions of the bourgeois. I'm well aware that they were widely supported by industrial workers - especially in russia, i believe - but the infrastructure and really broad revolutionary bases were, to my eyes, simply not there.

Here, I'm going to have to bite an unpalatable bullet, I suppose. It was very likely necessary for those revolutions to go ahead. Firstly, they put a whole lot more of the world under bourgeois rule, and they produced a whole lot more workers to be horribly dissatisfied with capitalism (hooray!). Secondly, they riled up our own bourgeois to go about strengthening their bulwarks against what they genuinely saw as a communist threat, investing heavily in previously ignored states - producing, you guessed it, a whole lot more capitalist states. It's a complex issue, because on one hand, i find all these states atrocious, but on the other hand I realise it's necessary to have as much of the world as possible under that system so we can finally make the change.

even in an extensive post I will be simplifying stuff because (as I very well know) literally thousands of books about this and most of them say everything better than i do and have the benefit of editors and lots of time to make sure it's readable and not idiotic. Still, I hope it goes some way to clearing up what I think of these revolutions.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

You won't catch me defending the "actually existing socialism(s)" of yesteryear, but, fuck "human rights" is some liberal garbage.

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

When I talk about "human rights" I'm mostly doing so in the capacity of my opposition to killing and torturing people.

Human rights, when spoken about in the media - I agree that's a whole other kettle of fish and is usually only mentioned as a pretext to some unspeakable act of some sort. Clearly the assumption is that you're only human if you agree with your masters :rolleyes:

[RadioRaheem84]

If human rights watch were really to connect all the dots, the US would be the prime violator which as much aid it gives to violators and as many connections there are to policy, torture, collusion and security officials in those nations. Externally, the US is the more repressive nation to ever exhist, but that's overshadowed because we bring aid to famine stricken areas or when a tidal wave hits once in a while. It's also overshadowed because we extend our freedoms to people immigrating here from nations we fucked up through our foreign policy. It gets overshadowed because in the US we have a decent amount of freedoms that a lot of other countries lack (due to our foreign policy) yet most of these gains can only be attributed to workers attacking the Status quo. Yet if you go their website and look for the US section you will find mostly stuff about disconnected events in the US that are not tied into the overall systemic nature of domestic and foreign policy, and corporate rule.
Go to Cuba, and it's an all around world violator of all sorts. A totalitarian place with record abuses.

[Jimmie Higgins]

What are human rights? It's too abstract to understood by itself.

In capitalist societies, most of the time there is a flexible concept of universal human rights... but when these rights come into conflict with property rights, property rights always trumps. Otherwise cheap generic AIDS drugs would be available in Africa. When a militia or "rogue" government displaces people and takes their land or destroys their homes it's a "human rights violation" and when banks do the same, it's "the market correcting itself". So really human rights are subbordinate to bourgeois rights and so it's all really because of capitalist power in society that human rights are respected - or disrespected (or changed in their official meaning).

So in my view, there are no "human rights" in the former USSR or many other so-called socialist countries because there is actually no "worker's power" which would eliminate abuses and the repression, ordering and disciplining of labor from above. Furhtermore, since worker's power would lead to the end of a distinct working class and other classes, then it's through "worker's power" that we could possibly approach something like true universal "human rights" since there wouldn't be any separate "class rights" to supersede it.

"Human rights violations" under the context of worker's liberating themselves is justified even if it becomes seen as maybe excessive later in peaceful times - the actions of the Spanish revolutionaries seems excessive to me now, but I'm not facing destruction at the hands of fascist at the moment, so I think that their actions were justified and just.

So I suppose that how someone sees rights violations in the USSR depends on if they see the role of the officials as defending "socialism" or promoting some other kind of rule. To me it's pretty clear that these were abuses that were not based out of worker's power.