Why individualism should be obliterated.

[LeftCrusade]

Individualism is the disease of humanity: where the individual gives himself precedence, humanity as a whole is poisoned. Ancient Rome, for example, thrived when the individual selflessly sacrificed himself for the good of the state, but succumbed when the individual raised himself above the state, thus starting the corruption that would be Rome’s end.

The collective is the individual’s means of survival: without your mother, you will not survive infancy, without your comrades, your social wellbeing will suffer. Everyone great man or woman had tens of others behind him in support of his or her greatness.

That the individual is great is an illusion. The individual is as a soldier in a regiment: alone he is but a human, but with five others they become more than five men since they supplement the strengths of one another. Individualists therefore oppose themselves, since their stupid designs like market economies will ultimately falter in the face of the glory of the planned state.

The collective body that is society cannot focus on the individual, this will lead to inpoliteness, deceit, competition. Instead it should focus on collective values like loyalty and caring. For individuality to prosper, individualism must be destroyed.

For this to happen, it’s imperative that we focus first and foremost on the state: all within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state. The state is the essence of the revolution since the state is the political essence of society, of those that hold together. We can only hold together when society is all-encompassing, thus the state has to be all-encompassing.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

.......No offense, friend, but that is some serious crypto-fascism you're speaking there.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

all within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.

At least change the wording for fuck's sake.

[DOOM]

sounds like the communist version of Volksgemeinschaft. Damn

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

sounds like the communist version of Volksgemeinschaft. Damn

More like some sort of Mussolini-inspired (Bombacci-inspired?) third positionism, given that the text contains a literal translation of the "tutto nello stato..." motto of Italian fascists.

[Rosa Partizan]

sounds like the communist version of Volksgemeinschaft. Damn

totally reminds me of that guy on "our" message board, who's all the time like "individualism leads to societal decay, humanity will extinct because it's trendy not to get children and everyone does what they want without thinking about the common good".

Indeed it's frightening how close this gets to certain fascist ideologies.

[DOOM]

More like some sort of Mussolini-inspired (Bombacci-inspired?) third positionism, given that the text contains a literal translation of the "tutto nello stato..." motto of Italian fascists.

it strikes me how some self-proclaimed communists use crypto-fascist ideas and völkisch rhetorics.

[RedWorker]

This guy looks like either a troll or just a coherent Stalinist who is both honest and knows what he's really talking about, but there's a few seemingly serious people on RevLeft who seem to love confirming Fox News stereotypes about communists.

[Sinister Intents]

Shit... You should read some Stirner. http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/stirner/stirnercw.html

[DOOM]

totally reminds me of that guy on "our" message board, who's all the time like "individualism leads to societal decay, humanity will extinct because it's trendy not to get children and everyone does what they want without thinking about the common good".

Indeed it's frightening how close this gets to certain fascist ideologies.

Yeah I guess I know which one you mean :D
But these anti-individualist tendencies are still really popular within the more authoritarian strains of the communist movement.With struct. antisemitism, it just takes one quick leap to get to the right spectrum. Like that german rapper Makss Damage, who was at first an antiimp, but became a Neonazi.

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

.......No offense, friend, but that is some serious crypto-fascism you're speaking there.

Crypto- fascism? More like full- blown fascism if you ask me. I guess distinctions between fascism and stalinism are arbitrary.

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

You need to scoot over to the left a little more…. :unsure:

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

This guy looks like either a troll or just a coherent Stalinist who is both honest and knows what he's really talking about, but there's a few seemingly serious people on RevLeft who seem to love confirming Fox News stereotypes about communists.

Here is where I run into trouble.

See, I disagree with Stalinism as much as the next fellow. Probably more, since many people who vilify Stalin are practically Stalinists themselves (in the sense that they support Socialism in One Country, stagism etc.). But at the same time, a lot of people just attack this giant caricature of Stalin and Stalinism, forcing me to defend what are my ideological enemies.

So, Stalin. You do realise that one of the reasons other socialists criticise Stalin is his exaggerated anti-fascism, or rather the Popular Front-era conception of anti-fascism as the centerpiece of socialist politics, up to legitimising coalitions with bourgeois parties?

I don't know how anyone can make the equation Stalinism = fascism unless they have no idea what fascism is.

[Rosa Partizan]

Yeah I guess I know which one you mean :D
But these anti-individualist tendencies are still really popular within the more authoritarian strains of the communist movement.With struct. antisemitism, it just takes one quick leap to get to the right spectrum. Like that german rapper Makss Damage, who was at first an antiimp, but became a Neonazi.

It's a shame that the english speaking majority here can't enjoy his lyrics, which are like "lyrically, I transport lethal gas to jewish areas". What a genius. But guess what, the Antideutsche saw this coming, while I initially thought that he was "only a bit" antisemitic.

[RedWorker]

I don't know how anyone can make the equation Stalinism = fascism unless they have no idea what fascism is.

Did I say that Stalin is a fascist?

However. Stalin: nationalism, concentration camps, autocracy, bureaucracy, mass murder, social conservatism, reaction to workers beginning to have more power in order to retain exploitation (in this case state capitalism), authoritarianism, total subjugation of the individual to the state, institutionalized state violence, imperialism, initial cooperation with Hitler, militarism, systematical murder and repression of actual socialists/communists...

Interpret that as you will.

[DOOM]

I guess that's a good idea for a thread.

[#FF0000]

pretty sure this is a direct quote from a mussolini speech lol

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

pretty sure this is a direct quote from a mussolini speech lol

Nah, Benito never talked about a "planned state". But the "tutto nello stato, neinte al di fuori dello stato, nullo contro lo stato" was an old PNF motto. Other parts of the post might have been cribbed from Gentile, though.

I find it worrying that I know so much about this.

[Queen Mab]

There needs to be made a distinction between individualism as an ideology and the individual as a human being. In the end this is a false dilemma that communism transcends.

[Redistribute the Rep]

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/images/300x/5174997.jpg

[Loony Le Fist]

Individualism is the disease of humanity: where the individual gives himself precedence, humanity as a whole is poisoned.


I think there are cases where individuals can take precedence.



Ancient Rome, for example, thrived when the individual selflessly sacrificed himself for the good of the state, but succumbed when the individual raised himself above the state, thus starting the corruption that would be Rome’s end.


I would say it was wanton and continuous imperialism was what lead to Rome's downfall. Imperialist states and nations always collapse. The British Empire; France under Napoleon; Genghis Khan and the mongols; all provide testament to this.



The collective is the individual’s means of survival: without your mother, you will not survive infancy, without your comrades, your social wellbeing will suffer. Everyone great man or woman had tens of others behind him in support of his or her greatness.


I agree.



That the individual is great is an illusion.


The individual is great, but the collective is better and more efficient. :grin:



The individual is as a soldier in a regiment: alone he is but a human, but with five others they become more than five men since they supplement the strengths of one another.


Sure. No disagreement here.



Individualists therefore oppose themselves, since their stupid designs like market economies will ultimately falter in the face of the glory of the planned state.


Well market economies are actually quite collective. Market economies will fail to deliver their promise to society overall. They do work great for the wealthy, nonetheless.



The collective body that is society cannot focus on the individual, this will lead to inpoliteness, deceit, competition.


It is a contradiction for society to focus on the individual. That would not be in the interest for maximizing the benefit to the most people. I think it is accurate to say that the cult of individualism is destroying our society and leads to "impoliteness, deceit". I don't see anything wrong with some friendly competition, as long as people's livelihoods aren't held hostage.



Instead it should focus on collective values like loyalty and caring. For individuality to prosper, individualism must be destroyed.


I think that the cult of individualism must be destroyed. Individualism itself should actually be very much encouraged. It is important for people to think for themselves. After all, from where would interesting ideas like socialism come from, if not for individualist thinking? We need unique thinkers and the freedom to develop and express ideas.



For this to happen, it’s imperative that we focus first and foremost on the state: all within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state. The state is the essence of the revolution since the state is the political essence of society, of those that hold together. We can only hold together when society is all-encompassing, thus the state has to be all-encompassing.

I disagree. The state is the antithesis of revolution. The concept of the state being independent of the collective will of individuals is a fascistic and anti-democratic conception. From a revolutionary standpoint, the state is our enemy, not our ally.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

IGTT 2/10.

For real though, this doesn't really grapple meaningfully with the history of either individualism (where's the enlightenment in this? or at least the reformation?) or of the state.

It's pr. bad.

[Rafiq]

The individualism/collectivism dichtomony is meaningless.

Through collective struggle and the spirit of self sacrafice can the individual as such exist, in its most pure and excessive form

[Sea]

This person:

1. Posted verbatim a quote traditionally attributed to Benito Mussolini.
2. Is otherwise acting like a really bad tankie parody. Poe's law, anyone?
3. Is Dutch.
4. Has only 8 posts. All but 2 (including this thread) are in the SiOC thread.

Therefore I am declaring that, uh...

http://ewnews.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/troll-doll_240.jpg

Yeah.

[Red Economist]

The problem is not individualism. The problem is that the individualism of the ruling class is based on private property and exploitation which makes relation between the "individual" and "society" antagonistic.
Running to a totally anti-individualistic position is just the opposite end of the pole through a totalitarian state (yeah- direct quote from Mussolini on Totalitarianism btw). The point is to abolish private property, exploitation and therefore the antagonism between the 'individual' and 'society', so that the freedom of the individual is not opposed to the freedom of other individuals in society.

(edit: ) That said, the use of dialectics in this way was also a part of fascist ideology, though in a 'idealist' Hegelian form. Whether this works or not is dependent on how far a person's interests can be changed and goes directly into the 'human nature' debate over the workability of socialism.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Yeah, just want to second other people here. I'm all for ideologically taking on the BS "induvidualism" of captialist ideology. I mean how the hell can a system that seeks to rationalize and quantify and commodify everything under the sun, turn labor into replaceable cogs, concentrates wealth and economic decisions into a tiny minority of mega capitalists, and makes multi-millions (billions?) of people wear uniforms to work. school, and in the military ever claim the mantle of "induvidualism".

Collective struggle for communism... smashing the ability of people to hold power over others, cooperative production and communites... frees induviduals.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

For this to happen, it’s imperative that we focus first and foremost on the state: all within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.
Smash the state!

[LeftCrusade]

The individualism/collectivism dichtomony is meaningless.

Through collective struggle and the spirit of self sacrafice can the individual as such exist, in its most pure and excessive form

It's sacrifice not sacrafice.
Write proper English if you want to be taken seriously...

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

The worst part of this is that someone thanked the OP.

Getting an increasingly creepy vibe from RevLeft, to be honest.

[TheMask]

.......No offense, friend, but that is some serious crypto-fascism you're speaking there.

Well honestly I dont agree with him either but at least he took some time to set up a case of arguments in an attempt to make his point shine bright unlike your simple claim sticking up and getting baked like an ant struggling to death in an unsave envoirment.

[PhoenixAsh]

This person:

1. Posted verbatim a quote traditionally attributed to Benito Mussolini.
2. Is otherwise acting like a really bad tankie parody. Poe's law, anyone?
4. Has only 8 posts. All but 2 (including this thread) are in the SiOC thread.

Therefore I am declaring that, uh...

http://ewnews.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/troll-doll_240.jpg

Yeah.

^ this



3. Is Dutch.

Wait...what?? :blink:

[PhoenixAsh]

The worst part of this is that someone thanked the OP.

Getting an increasingly creepy vibe from RevLeft, to be honest.

That is the issue with crypto-fascism posing within left-wing ideology. For people who are learning politically it is often extremely hard to distinguish from genuine left wing ideology especially the more authoritarian variants are sometimes hard to distinguish.

[Leftsolidarity]

It's sacrifice not sacrafice.
Write proper English if you want to be taken seriously...

Your thinly veiled pro-Fascist sentiment in the OP is enough, you don't need to add on top of that being an asshole over a wrong letter and your (not surprising) chauvinism around "proper English" on an international message board. I hope you don't stick around long. You seem like a waste of pixels on my screen.

[TheMask]

So I have been reading many replies to this post and as far as I can see, most of them can be rounded down to either:
1: You (The original author of this post) are not a communist. How dare you challenge my view on the great communist ideology you fascist? Do you not realize we are all individuals? What has Revleft come to??
2: Ohh my God you suck! (Moreover, the opinion of 1 is most likely intended but through an annoying internet-devoted, discussion-evading setting is unfortunately only limited to the above)
Now what bothers me about post is unlike most of you not the writer and I say this for a very simple reason. He seems reasonable and well arguing. I may not agree with all his points but at least he took time to further explain his point of view and might to some even seem reasonable enough. What most of people who then replied did was the opposite of seizing this great opportunity to argue and simply state that ‘’you are a fascist’’. After reading such a reply, I am forced to sit back and wonder simply: ‘’and..?’’. What could you possibly hope to achieve with such a reply? Do you think you’re going to just turn the mind of some die-hard Stalinist simply by calling him a fascist? Do you even think you’re going to make anyone think about a word you’ve said after they close down their browser and get of RevLeft? You most likely are not.

Furthermore there is something I’d like to hear an opinion of. And it has to do with the whole discussion on fascism. What is a fascist? When does the boundary go between communism and fascism? And how can you rant on about someone who you think crossed the line only according to your own definition of fascism? Obviously the writer of this post sees himself as a communist so if you don’t then your definition of communism obviously differs from his? And this is when a lot of people start getting mad because they don’t think each other belong on this site for having another ideology than themselves but how can you be the judge of ideologies? You can’t. That’s the whole point of this forum. That we are all revolutionary lefties with different ideals and visions to comparison. Therefore simply stating that someone is or is not a fascist or communist when you meet someone who’s world-ideal differs from your own is not only point but defies the point of this site. But the important question still remains. How far can a communist or an anarchist go and still be a communist or an anarchist? How far do you allow people to differ from your own opinion before you label them as imprudent? And I find this funny merely because this discussion was initially about individuality. A lot of you are actually calling the author of this post a bad guy because his views on individuality differ from your own. But is that not the very foundation of individuality? That you ARE allowed to have opinions that differ from the masses? And if you take away the writer's right to do so are you not then yourself the one who is obliterating individuality?

[TheMask]

That is the issue with crypto-fascism posing within left-wing ideology. For people who are learning politically it is often extremely hard to distinguish from genuine left wing ideology especially the more authoritarian variants are sometimes hard to distinguish.

But why is it so important that we differ between ideologies? Cant everyone have their own views on different subjects and still broadly be within the same ideology? Is that not what individuality is all about?

[Red Economist]

Now what bothers me about post is unlike most of you not the writer and I say this for a very simple reason. He seems reasonable and well arguing. I may not agree with all his points but at least he took time to further explain his point of view and might to some even seem reasonable enough. What most of people who then replied did was the opposite of seizing this great opportunity to argue and simply state that ‘’you are a fascist’’. After reading such a reply, I am forced to sit back and wonder simply: ‘’and..?’’. What could you possibly hope to achieve with such a reply? Do you think you’re going to just turn the mind of some die-hard Stalinist simply by calling him a fascist? Do you even think you’re going to make anyone think about a word you’ve said after they close down their browser and get of RevLeft? You most likely are not.

very wise. ;)


Furthermore there is something I’d like to hear an opinion of. And it has to do with the whole discussion on fascism. What is a fascist? When does the boundary go between communism and fascism? And how can you rant on about someone who you think crossed the line only according to your own definition of fascism?

I think Fascism can be defined in two ways; as an ideology and as a psychological state of mind. The former defines an authoritarian, nationalistic- but fundamentally capitalist ideology.
As a psychology, however, it is more generally a criticism of authoritarianism and therefore both communism and fascism show considerable overlap. Where the line is drawn, I honestly don't know, as it is very hard to evaluate the differences between what someone says, what they do and what they are capable of doing. 'fascism' implies a willing submission and co-operation with an authoritarian system and this is far from predictable and relies mainly on insight.


Obviously the writer of this post sees himself as a communist so if you don’t then your definition of communism obviously differs from his? And this is when a lot of people start getting mad because they don’t think each other belong on this site for having another ideology than themselves but how can you be the judge of ideologies? You can’t.

I don't agree with the OP, but I do recognize the he does indeed represent a strand in Marxist/Communist ideology. If you react against the decadant and destructive 'individualism' of the ruling class, you are going to think in terms of collectivism and of the state, so it is understandable. But personally, I see the goal of communism as freedom, so I have a very strong pre-disposition to individualism anyway, if not in fact being a radish (red on the outside, white on the inside). The OP is not a fascist, but certainly has ideas that are similar because the expansive role of the state in both fascism and (authoritarian) communism are similar, though serving different interests.
Unfortunately, I think this is one of those moments you're going to get a 'fuck you' crowd who will dismiss a person's ideas purely for being different.


That’s the whole point of this forum. That we are all revolutionary lefties with different ideals and visions to comparison. Therefore simply stating that someone is or is not a fascist or communist when you meet someone who’s world-ideal differs from your own is not only point but defies the point of this site. But the important question still remains. How far can a communist or an anarchist go and still be a communist or an anarchist? How far do you allow people to differ from your own opinion before you label them as imprudent? And I find this funny merely because this discussion was initially about individuality.

I think liberals call this the 'paradox of tolerance'; if you tolerate someone who is intolerant, they can work to undermine tolerance. In thinking the OP is a 'fascist' who poses a threat, we respond with intolerance. The problem is the line is always going to drawn by a human and so is as fallible as any human judgement.


A lot of you are actually calling the author of this post a bad guy because his views on individuality differ from your own. But is that not the very foundation of individuality? That you ARE allowed to have opinions that differ from the masses? And if you take away the writer's right to do so are you not then yourself the one who is obliterating individuality?

Agreed. it's a knee-jerk reaction. And to be honest, it's part of the ingrained and irrational fear of totalitarianism of a neo-liberal society, even if it is in a communist guise. I think we have to accept that we do have authoritarians among us and they do indeed represent part of communist ideology.

[Comrade Strong]

Stalinism=Red Fascism. That's all that can be said for this OP.

[Xena Warrior Proletarian]

So I have been reading many replies to this post and as far as I can see, most of them can be rounded down to either:
1: You (The original author of this post) are not a communist. How dare you challenge my view on the great communist ideology you fascist? Do you not realize we are all individuals? What has Revleft come to??
2: Ohh my God you suck! (Moreover, the opinion of 1 is most likely intended but through an annoying internet-devoted, discussion-evading setting is unfortunately only limited to the above)
Now what bothers me about post is unlike most of you not the writer and I say this for a very simple reason. He seems reasonable and well arguing. I may not agree with all his points but at least he took time to further explain his point of view and might to some even seem reasonable enough. What most of people who then replied did was the opposite of seizing this great opportunity to argue and simply state that ‘’you are a fascist’’. After reading such a reply, I am forced to sit back and wonder simply: ‘’and..?’’. What could you possibly hope to achieve with such a reply? Do you think you’re going to just turn the mind of some die-hard Stalinist simply by calling him a fascist? Do you even think you’re going to make anyone think about a word you’ve said after they close down their browser and get of RevLeft? You most likely are not.

Furthermore there is something I’d like to hear an opinion of. And it has to do with the whole discussion on fascism. What is a fascist? When does the boundary go between communism and fascism? And how can you rant on about someone who you think crossed the line only according to your own definition of fascism? Obviously the writer of this post sees himself as a communist so if you don’t then your definition of communism obviously differs from his? And this is when a lot of people start getting mad because they don’t think each other belong on this site for having another ideology than themselves but how can you be the judge of ideologies? You can’t. That’s the whole point of this forum. That we are all revolutionary lefties with different ideals and visions to comparison. Therefore simply stating that someone is or is not a fascist or communist when you meet someone who’s world-ideal differs from your own is not only point but defies the point of this site. But the important question still remains. How far can a communist or an anarchist go and still be a communist or an anarchist? How far do you allow people to differ from your own opinion before you label them as imprudent? And I find this funny merely because this discussion was initially about individuality. A lot of you are actually calling the author of this post a bad guy because his views on individuality differ from your own. But is that not the very foundation of individuality? That you ARE allowed to have opinions that differ from the masses? And if you take away the writer's right to do so are you not then yourself the one who is obliterating individuality?

A Communist society is STATELESS. This is one of the qualitative differences between Fascism and Communism. In this regard there is no overlap.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

That is the issue with crypto-fascism posing within left-wing ideology. For people who are learning politically it is often extremely hard to distinguish from genuine left wing ideology especially the more authoritarian variants are sometimes hard to distinguish.

No. Just no.

Any sort of revolutionary socialist - of course you have people who think social-democracy, mutualism, technocracy, whatever, are "left wing", but this is a site for revolutionary socialists, not for anyone who calls themselves "left" - wants a stateless, classless society. "Authoritarian" communists do so as well, only we are not afraid of admitting that kind of society will probably have to be built on a mountain of corpses, both of our enemies and of our comrades.

Of course, this sort of hollow individualism/"collectivism" (eusociality for bored suburbanites) dichotomy would embarrass any genuine materialist, but so would half of the material on this site.


The OP is not a fascist, but certainly has ideas that are similar because the expansive role of the state in both fascism and (authoritarian) communism are similar, though serving different interests.

The role of the state in any kind of communism is to have withered away, and putting "authoritarian" or "totalitarian" before the term "communism" doesn't change that, it just makes you look like a social democrat.

And good grief, the OP literally copied, word-for-word, a motto of the National Fascist Party.


Unfortunately, I think this is one of those moments you're going to get a 'fuck you' crowd who will dismiss a person's ideas purely for being different.

No, the so-called "fuck you" crowd saw through what is either thinly-veiled third-positionism or an attempt to troll, and the Knights of Free Speech are once again tilting at windmills.

I give up.

[Haldane]

Individualism is not necessarily opposed to altruism and is not equatable to Randian objectivism, and collectivism is not necessarily opposed to egoism either. Although Karl Popper was a critic of Marxism and therefore probably not that well liked by many of the members of this forum, his essay "Individualism versus Collectivism" is a pretty good response to radical conformist utilitarian collectivists like the Stalinist who started this thread.

[Dagoth Ur]

How can one be an individual without being a part of a collective? Individuals do not exist outside.

[BIXX]

How can one be an individual without being a part of a collective? Individuals do not exist outside.


Individualism doesn't say we are outside of the collective.

[BIXX]

At least no individualist ideas that I know of if there are please enlighten me

[Jimmie Higgins]

It's sacrifice not sacrafice.
Write proper English if you want to be taken seriously...Everyone knows that proper spelling is nothing but a manifestation of bourgeois decadence. The united working class will smash the decrepit alphabet and replace it with a numerical based metric language. 93288891999922229!

[Ele'ill]

kill this culture

[Doctor Hilarius]

It's sacrifice not sacrafice.
Write proper English if you want to be taken seriously...

That is a little classicist isn't it?

Sort of like;

"Wear real clothes instead of rags if you want to be taken seriously"

Basically, you are saying somebody needs to be more bourgeois so you can take them seriously. If you can't take somebody seriously by virtue of them just being a human being, then you are not part of a movement that I would personally want to identify with (which you aren't, so I guess that was obvious to begin with).

[MarcusJuniusBrutus]

Can't agree with your assessment of Rome. That's narrative, not history. Rome was a slave empire and I will shed no tears for its political collapse in the west. And while the Roman elites and, therefore, the state itself thrived for a long time, it is less clear that the people were better off for it. A large number of those folks were either slaves or subjugated peoples. Even the republic (which was also an empire, BTW) was highly oligarchical. Significantly, it is not really accurate to say Rome collapsed so much as changed management in the west. Ordinary people continued to think of themselves as Roman until at least Carolingian times. The great nobles of the first millennium C.E. were descended from Roman administrators that preceded them (and not from warriors as is generally believed). Ecclesiastical organization perpetuated the Roman administrative units and legal codes. In the east, the empire continued unabated into the 8th century when the Islamic campaigns began to consume its territory. Frankly, the Muslims had such an easy time of it partly because people in outlying parts of the empire wanted to be free of Byzantine meddling. Hanging on at Constantinople until the 15th c., the eastern empire was re-established by Mehmed II, who saved Constantinople from its slow atrophy. The multicultural, multiconfessional Ottoman Empire, known as Ruum (Rome) by its rulers, continued until WW1.

Second, while I completely accept the communal nature of human society and that "individualism" is often code for the presumed right of the rich to ignore their social responsibilities and do whatever they want at the expense of everyone else. Still, while we live in communities and ought to strengthen those communal bonds, everyone is also an individual with her or his own feelings, ideas, and value. So, while I agree with the obvious fact that humans are mutually dependent on each other, I also would not want to crush what makes everyone a unique individual.

[MarcusJuniusBrutus]

I'm a bit of a linguistic martinet myself, but I have to recognize the difference between formal, written language and colloquial language. Traditionally, there was one, complex language for writing--Latin or Classical Arabic, for example--and a simplified spoken language, such as Old French or Moroccan Arabic. English evolved as both a spoken and later as a formalized written language, so it is easy to forget that there actually is a vernacular form of it. If you doubt that, spend some time in London's east end or rural Alabama.

[synthesis]

A lot of you are actually calling the author of this post a bad guy because his views on individuality differ from your own. But is that not the very foundation of individuality? That you ARE allowed to have opinions that differ from the masses?

No, and please fuck off along with the OP.

[Red Economist]

The role of the state in any kind of communism is to have withered away, and putting "authoritarian" or "totalitarian" before the term "communism" doesn't change that, it just makes you look like a social democrat.

And good grief, the OP literally copied, word-for-word, a motto of the National Fascist Party.

Yeah, he quite literally took it from Mussolini. It's pretty disturbing.


The term was later assigned a positive meaning in the writings of Giovanni Gentile (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giovanni_Gentile), Italy’s most prominent philosopher and leading theorist of fascism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism). He used the term “totalitario” to refer to the structure and goals of the new state, which was to provide the “total representation of the nation and total guidance of national goals.”[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism#cite_note-10) He described totalitarianism as a society in which the ideology of the state had influence, if not power, over most of its citizens.[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism#cite_note-11) According to Benito Mussolini (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benito_Mussolini), this system politicizes everything spiritual and human: "Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism#Etymology)

Unfortunately, Communism wasn't stateless in real life and instead produced an abomination- exactly for some of the ideological reasons posted by the OP. the crudity of the collectivism and purely anti-individualistic is a serious problem as 'hating' individualism and thinking that an all-embracing collectivism is the anzwer is just not helpful for anyone. So yeah, I do listen to social democratic arguments on this because it worries me.


No, the so-called "fuck you" crowd saw through what is either thinly-veiled third-positionism or an attempt to troll, and the Knights of Free Speech are once again tilting at windmills.

I give up.

On the contrary- somewhere in this debate is where the line is drawn between Communism and Fascism and I want to be careful are where we draw it. Gut reaction aside, we need to know the 'enemy' whatever forms he/she takes, especially when its wearing our own ideological clothing.

But yeah, the knights of free speech going to the rescue of a pseudo-fascist is farcical. He might be a troll, but honestly- it's far too well articulated. It's the kind of "barracks communism" which communism is caricatured for from it's 'utopian' days. As a trotskyist, surely you can hear the echo of the "militarisation of labour" debates in the USSR in the OP's rhetoric?

[#FF0000]

But why is it so important that we differ between ideologies? Cant everyone have their own views on different subjects and still broadly be within the same ideology? Is that not what individuality is all about?

The problem isn't "ah yes he has a different opinion". The problem is what he wrote is some ridiculous quasi-fascist nonsense, literally quoting mussolini.

[bropasaran]

I don't know how anyone can make the equation Stalinism = fascism unless they have no idea what fascism is.
Not equation, but a close aproximation, they are largely similar systems and fascism is even less oppressive in some respects (more in some others).

As far as the OP is concerned I think it's likely he's a troll, being that he quoted from Doctrine of Fascism. I' ve actually seen this kind of trolling before where they would go a forum and post more or less obscure passages from Doctrine of Fascism or Mein Kampf, without reference of course, to see if someone would agree an them use that to bash the ideology that is behind that forum. They obviously have more free time then they got brains.

[LeftCrusade]

Dear readers,

First of all, I thank you all for your replies, no matter if they were hateful, or if you defended the freedom of speech and so defended individualism.

The first post was not written just by myself. I made it with another user on this forum who didn't really like the tolerance towards other ideas on this forum. So the reason of the first post, was because we were both interested in the answer to that question.

The OP wasn't exactly what I really believe in.
The reason I posted this in a red fascist fashion, is for I was interested in the tolerance to other ideas in this forum, so if the people on this forum tolerate individualism.
What I found very ironic was that people were hating about me saying individualism was bad and it should be obliterated. But most of the replies were about that I can't have different ideas than yours. So my first post wasn't the only anti individualistic post in this thread...

Another point of this thread was that I wanted to know what others on this forum think about a strong state in the transition phase to a socialist society. To make it clear, I am for a strong state in the transition phase, but not as extreme as I said in my first post.
The Mussolini quote was implemented to make my post a bit more, controversial. To see what people on Revleft think of 'other' ideas than the ones of themselves.

We apologize for the rampant pseudo-fascism, but that was kind of the point, seeing if anyone actually agreed with it. I've got to say, the actual reactions were sort of a relief.

[#FF0000]

Except that disagreeing with someone doesn't mean that you're against "individualism" though. Egoists don't just sit around nodding enthusiastically at what everyone around them has to say. If you want to know what people think about individualism, you should probably ask them and have a discussion about it.

I mean, disagreeing with something doesn't even constitute intolerance of other opinions. You're a Marxist-Leninist -- on this site that puts you at odds with almost every other member.

[PhoenixAsh]

So basically you have been trolling. :rolleyes:

[LeftCrusade]

The standard definition of trolling is: "deliberately trying to provoke readers into an emotional response."
I didn't intend to get emotional reactions, I wanted to know how tolerant people on this forum are to different ideas (such as red fascism). Were the readers going to criticise the post with arguments? Or were they going to criticise the post by just calling me fascist or would they try to insult me in a different way. And ofcourse, I was interested if there were people that really believe in it.
Ofcourse, I got some emotional reactions by people who feel offended that a fellow communist has fascist ideas, but it wasn't my intention to get emotional reactions.
So I don't think you can call this trolling.

[LeftCrusade]

Except that disagreeing with someone doesn't mean that you're against "individualism" though. Egoists don't just sit around nodding enthusiastically at what everyone around them has to say. If you want to know what people think about individualism, you should probably ask them and have a discussion about it.

I mean, disagreeing with something doesn't even constitute intolerance of other opinions. You're a Marxist-Leninist -- on this site that puts you at odds with almost every other member.

I'm not saying that everyone who criticised me is against individualism. But some of the posts, like Synthesis his post, were:


Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMask View Post
A lot of you are actually calling the author of this post a bad guy because his views on individuality differ from your own. But is that not the very foundation of individuality? That you ARE allowed to have opinions that differ from the masses?
No, and please fuck off along with the OP.


He told me and TheMask we should 'fuck off', probably he means off this forum. I think you can say about this post that it's not very tolerant and I think you can use this as an example of anti-individualism.

[#FF0000]

The standard definition of trolling is: "deliberately trying to provoke readers into an emotional response."
I didn't intend to get emotional reactions, I wanted to know how tolerant people on this forum are to different ideas (such as red fascism). Were the readers going to criticise the post with arguments? Or were they going to criticise the post by just calling me fascist or would they try to insult me in a different way. And ofcourse, I was interested if there were people that really believe in it.
Ofcourse, I got some emotional reactions by people who feel offended that a fellow communist has fascist ideas, but it wasn't my intention to get emotional reactions.
So I don't think you can call this trolling.

Again I don't think this has anything to do with tolerance and everything to do with the fact that the post was poorly argued and used direct quotes from Mussolini. No one's going to take a shitty post seriously, is what I'm saying.

If you had, however, just come in and said "yo I don't like individualism here's why" then you'd have an actual discussion.

[#FF0000]

He told me and TheMask we should 'fuck off', probably he means off this forum. I think you can say about this post that it's not very tolerant and I think you can use this as an example of anti-individualism.

No I don't think you can, because literally anyone with any idea in their head can tell someone else to fuck off. One can be an Egoist and tell someone to fuck off.

[LeftCrusade]

Again I don't think this has anything to do with tolerance and everything to do with the fact that the post was poorly argued and used direct quotes from Mussolini. No one's going to take a shitty post seriously, is what I'm saying.

If you had, however, just come in and said "yo I don't like individualism here's why" then you'd have an actual discussion.

This is the last reply to the trolling accusation, for I'm afraid an endless discussion will start.

You say 'No one's going to take a shitty post seriously'. Please read the whole thread again. There were some people who did and who decently gave a reply with their critics.

Because you and some other people see my post as not seriously. Doesn't mean no one does.

And about the title, when we made the title we chose between a few of which this one was the mildest. Ofcourse, for we wanted to be taken seriously. I understand that you find the title a bit, weird. But saying it makes a post not serious, I don't agree with that.

[LeftCrusade]

No I don't think you can, because literally anyone with any idea in their head can tell someone else to fuck off. One can be an Egoist and tell someone to fuck off.

A definition of intolerance: "lacking respect for practices and beliefs other than one's own"

Telling someone to 'fuck off' IS lacking respect.

Good day.

[#FF0000]

Because you and some other people see my post as not seriously. Doesn't mean no one does.


Oh of course there's always people who put more effort into a thread/post than it deserves. I'm often one of those people. I also don't think it's fair to say that I didn't take the post seriously when I asked why it was quoting Mussolini. That's not a fair question?

And is it also not fair for someone to say "welp that's some quasi-fascist bullshit" when you make a post citing Mussolini?


And about the title, when we made the title we chose between a few of which this one was the mildest. Ofcourse, for we wanted to be taken seriously. I understand that you find the title a bit, weird. But saying it makes a post not serious, I don't agree with that.But it wasn't a serious post. You posted it specifically to see what kind of reactions you got. Predictably, you got negative ones because you literally quoted a Fascist leader. People of most political stripe and philosophical background (save for those sympathetic to Fascism) are more than likely going to tell you to fuck off as well if you quote Mussolini or Hitler to them. That says nothing about their thoughts about individualism, though, because individualism doesn't mean being nice to people with ideas you think are wrong or poorly thought out.


A definition of intolerance: "lacking respect for practices and beliefs other than one's own"

Telling someone to 'fuck off' IS lacking respect.

Good day.

Sounds like everyone on the planet who has an opinion is intolerant then.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

OP you're a shit philosopher.

There's no point talking in absolutes. Collective means can be used to achieve individualistic ends, individualised solutions can sometimes be best for the community (tailored education, for example, or tailored healthcare, as another example).

I am quite suspicious of people who rail so readily against individualism. It makes me think that they're never experienced a denial of their individual liberty; state repression and all that. If they had, or if they were aware of the extent to which the state (whomever controls it!) can wield power, often for power's sake, then I seriously doubt they would be so ready to discard their own liberty for the sake of some abstract, ill-defined, flag-waving collectivism.

[synthesis]

He told me and TheMask we should 'fuck off', probably he means off this forum. I think you can say about this post that it's not very tolerant and I think you can use this as an example of anti-individualism.

I see your posts haven't gotten any less masturbatory since you dropped the brownshirt act. Why are you so mad that someone didn't engage with your idea when you weren't serious about it in the first place? Shouldn't it be "sort of a relief"?

Honestly, though, this thread has actually served to reinforce my approval of our "no platform" policy.

[LeftCrusade]

I see your posts haven't gotten any less masturbatory since you dropped the brownshirt act. Why are you so mad that someone didn't engage with your idea when you weren't serious about it in the first place? Shouldn't it be "sort of a relief"?

Honestly, though, this thread has actually served to reinforce my approval of our "no platform" policy.

I don't know how you came to the idea I was getting mad;) I was just defending my point.

[exeexe]

If i could post links i would post a youtube video called

Silvia Superstar - I've got a machinegun :mad:



It fits this thread so well

edit:
lrgcvfAf-Cs

[Jimmie Higgins]

Claim:
The standard definition of trolling is: "deliberately trying to provoke readers into an emotional response."
...
So I don't think you can call this trolling.

Counter Evidence:

6. slang (computing) to post deliberately inflammatory articles on an internet discussion board


The Mussolini quote was implemented to make my post a bit more, controversial.


Verdict: trolling.

[Jimmie Higgins]

It's sacrifice not sacrafice.
Write proper English if you want to be taken seriously...

And grammar nazis are only 3 degrees of awful below actual nazis anyway. That's one degree of awful above people who wear google glasses!

I joke. Nazis are pretty awful. No tolerance towards them... In fact, obliterate those ideas.

[ArisVelouxiotis]

At first I thought the comment of #ff000 (the first time he/she said it) was a joke.
When I realised it was truth that he quoted from mussolini I got sick a bit.
I'm those who think ideas like red fascism is ridiculous but you are just supporting it with this bullshit post man.

[BIXX]

Individualism is the disease of humanity: where the individual gives himself precedence, humanity as a whole is poisoned.

Interesting claim. Cant say I disagree- humanity itself is a blight. And I don't mean humanity as in humans, but humanity as in the social construct of humanity that individuals are expected to put ahead of themselves. It is oppressive, and I, as a nihilist who is (due to my nihilism) an egoist anarchist, cannot see why anyone would support "humanity", unless they are still fooled by the phantoms.


Ancient Rome, for example, thrived when the individual selflessly sacrificed himself for the good of the state, but succumbed when the individual raised himself above the state, thus starting the corruption that would be Rome’s end.

1. That is not all individualism though. It is spectacular individualism, meaning it maintained oppressive structures, "phantoms" if you will.

2. I don't know how well you know the history of Rome, but let me give you a quick history. Gaius Marius corrupted the position of consul for power. Now, that was the "beginning" of corruption in Rome, and I am sure that the corruption of the consul position is what you were referring to. The downfall of Rome depends also on what you consider Rome- do you mean the Roman Republic, or the Roman Empire? The Roman Republic never fell per se, rather it became the Roman Empire when Julius Caesar took power. He was assassinated because a few people wanted the Republic back, in fact, but they failed. The Roman Empire fell for many reasons, some of which are inherent to government (corruption, the suppression of individuals and communities, being ruling class puppets (as well as being the ruling class)). There are many reasons though- one of which can be attributed to the rise of the modern era (which came with the rise , which Max Stirner (who is one of the most prominent individualists, ever) analyzed quite well (not the fall of the empire but the rise of the modern era). But historians, and prominently Edward Gibbon, blame Christianity to an extent (he says Christianity led to effeminacy which led to the fall of Rome because people were less willing to lead the tough military lifestyle, I disagree with that though. I think it made people disinterested with the real- the culture changed from interacting with the world, trying to "get to the back of things" (in the words of Stirner) as to no longer be oppressed or worried by them, to the age of concerning oneself solely with the spiritual, trying to be closer to "God", and in general losing interest in reality) (I also wrote too much about this one specifically, as it is something I just read about). Of course I don't think this is the biggest reason as to why the empire/republic fell. I feel that the bigger reason was an over reliance on slave labour. When the empire fell, there was a deficit of new slaves to maintain it. In economies where there is little to no egalitarianism, they are likely to collapse for the reasons stated in this recent report. (http://www.sesync.org/sites/default/files/resources/motesharrei-rivas-kalnay.pdf)


The collective is the individual’s means of survival: without your mother, you will not survive infancy, without your comrades, your social well-being will suffer. Everyone great man or woman had tens of others behind him in support of his or her greatness.

No individualist (that I'm aware of, if you have any sources that do claim that we do not rely on others then let me know) denies that.


That the individual is great is an illusion. The individual is as a soldier in a regiment: alone he is but a human, but with five others they become more than five men since they supplement the strengths of one another. Individualists therefore oppose themselves, since their stupid designs like market economies will ultimately falter in the face of the glory of the planned state.

We don't all support market economies. I sure don't, as I don't even support economy. But seriously, you're making such general statements that they break down when you look at multiple groups of individuals.


The collective body that is society cannot focus on the individual, this will lead to impoliteness, deceit, competition. Instead it should focus on collective values like loyalty and caring. For individuality to prosper, individualism must be destroyed.

I don't speak for all individualists here, but I don't even want the collective body (society) to focus on the individual. Society is inherently incompatible with the individual.


For this to happen, it’s imperative that we focus first and foremost on the state: all within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state. The state is the essence of the revolution since the state is the political essence of society, of those that hold together. We can only hold together when society is all-encompassing, thus the state has to be all-encompassing.

Wow, OK. No, fuck the state. I'm not gonna bother with all the anti-state arguments here as you can find them all over the internet.

[fugazi]

he also named his post after the Eastasian state religion in 1984. I have a hard time believing that OP is sincere in his ideology

what weirds me out is that I can think of a Tiqqun quote that relates to this

[Red Economist]

Dear readers,

First of all, I thank you all for your replies, no matter if they were hateful, or if you defended the freedom of speech and so defended individualism.

The first post was not written just by myself. I made it with another user on this forum who didn't really like the tolerance towards other ideas on this forum. So the reason of the first post, was because we were both interested in the answer to that question.

The OP wasn't exactly what I really believe in.
The reason I posted this in a red fascist fashion, is for I was interested in the tolerance to other ideas in this forum, so if the people on this forum tolerate individualism.
What I found very ironic was that people were hating about me saying individualism was bad and it should be obliterated. But most of the replies were about that I can't have different ideas than yours. So my first post wasn't the only anti individualistic post in this thread...

Another point of this thread was that I wanted to know what others on this forum think about a strong state in the transition phase to a socialist society. To make it clear, I am for a strong state in the transition phase, but not as extreme as I said in my first post.
The Mussolini quote was implemented to make my post a bit more, controversial. To see what people on Revleft think of 'other' ideas than the ones of themselves.

We apologize for the rampant pseudo-fascism, but that was kind of the point, seeing if anyone actually agreed with it. I've got to say, the actual reactions were sort of a relief.

Nicely done. :grin:

Welcome to Revleft, where "we" decide whether to thank your posts or purge you depending on what stage we are in of our collective mood swings.

Remember, it's only paranoia if/when "they" aren't after you. :confused:

[Rafiq]

A definition of intolerance: "lacking respect for practices and beliefs other than one's own"

Telling someone to 'fuck off' IS lacking respect.

Good day.

Tolerance means nothing to Marxists. Why should anyone tolerate you? We will not tolerate anything that stands in the way of the revolution.

[Rafiq]

2. I don't know how well you know the history of Rome, but let me give you a quick history. Gaius Marius corrupted the position of consul for power. Now, that was the "beginning" of corruption in Rome, and I am sure that the corruption of the consul position is what you were referring to. The downfall of Rome depends also on what you consider Rome- do you mean the Roman Republic, or the Roman Empire? The Roman Republic never fell per se, rather it became the Roman Empire when Julius Caesar took power.

Actually, you're wrong. This is a wholly ruling class account of the fall of the Roman Republic and does not take into account the political dimension here: By the first century B.C. Rome was plagued by social strife and class struggle, expressed between the Popularis and Optimates. The general predisposition towards all popular leaders by bourgeois historians was that they were demagogues, generally in concurrence with Optimate scum like Cato or their sympathizers (Cicero). There was a dichotomy between "noble" Republican values and the alleged self aggrandizing, power hungry Popular leaders - though it's important to take into account the fact that Rome was effectively a plutocracy, senators were not benevolent civic minded rulers but parasitic oppressors and aristocrats. The whole of the struggle rested on the attempt to integrate the populace more into the political process as well achieve a land reform that the landowning and senatorial aristocrats would have much to lose from.

The position for consul was not "corrupted" by Marius, but a result of the conflict itself and his refusal to acknowledge the utter sham that was the machinations of the Republic - The popular assemblies acknowledged Marius, but the Senate acknowledged Sulla.

With regard to Caesar, this is largely again based on false historical accounts by aristocratic historians, or the bastardization of Caesar's legacy by the Empire, starting with Augustus. Julius Caesar had absolutely no intention of transforming Rome into an Empire, or assuming the role of a monarch. It was not until Augustus came out victorious in a power struggle with Antony that Rome soon after became an Empire - it's crucial to remember that Augustus's politics were astronomically different in that he did his best to appease the landowning aristocrats and completely scrapped Caesar's planned land reform. What's telling here, is that these were the same aristocrats who whined about tyranny or power being abused - I guess it doesn't matter when you've got someone whose actually fulfilling your interests (though It's important to remember that the senatorial aristocracy had effectively been wiped out by this time by the triumviate).

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

.......No offense, friend, but that is some serious crypto-fascism you're speaking there.

Aside from fetishizing 'the state' and (if I'm not mistaken) paraphrasing Mussolini, s/he's really not arguing anything that myself, Behaviorists, and other Collectivist school have been saying for awhile now. 'The self' and 'the ego' are illusions, as is the 'individual' as is 'personality.'

[#FF0000]

I'd say that fetishizing the state and paraphrasing Mussolini would suggest some other big issues tho

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

I'd say that fetishizing the state and paraphrasing Mussolini would suggest some other big issues tho

True, no argument.

[Rafiq]

The individualism/collectivism dichtomony is meaningless.

Through collective struggle and the spirit of self sacrafice can the individual as such exist, in its most pure and excessive form

And I say this, just in case anyone is wondering, because the exaltation of the individual as such is a falsehood, this egotistical masturbation creates an image of 'you' or 'I' that is a lie.

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

Tolerance means nothing to Marxists. Why should anyone tolerate you? We will not tolerate anything that stands in the way of the revolution.


Yes, because LeftCrusade is, in his own way, standing in the way of revolution by arguing with you in an Internet forum. Brilliant logic, that.

And I can think of a few dozen things that could stand in the way of revolution, such as disagreements over programmatic demands or tactics with regards to the class struggle itself.

[Rafiq]

Yes, because LeftCrusade is, in his own way, standing in the way of revolution by arguing with you in an Internet forum. Brilliant logic, that.

And I can think of a few dozen things that could stand in the way of revolution, such as disagreements over programmatic demands or tactics with regards to the class struggle itself.

No, I was trying to say that tolerance in itself means nothing to us, because if something were to get in the way of the revolution it would not be tolerated. Did I say Leftcrusade gets in the way of the revolution? No, I didn't, and yet somehow you think you're giving a go at me because of it, and look how you fucking run wild with it to. No, you need to shut the fuck up and re-evaluate what you say before you go and add on to it, somehow as if that helps.

Fucking shitbird trot. Just shut the fuck up and stop posting. Your username itself gives me a damn headache.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Yes, because LeftCrusade is, in his own way, standing in the way of revolution by arguing with you in an Internet forum. Brilliant logic, that.

This is quite possibly the funniest thing I've read on this forum to date. Ty.<3

[Rafiq]

And I can think of a few dozen things that could stand in the way of revolution, such as disagreements over programmatic demands or tactics with regards to the class struggle itself.

I mean honestly, no you're right, Lenin was so wrong to disagree with Kautsky on the war among other things, Marxists were so wrong to disagree with those apolitical anarchists, oh you couldn't be more right. What an obnoxiously stupid thing to say.

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

No, I was trying to say that tolerance in itself means nothing to us, because if something were to get in the way of the revolution it would not be tolerated. Did I say Leftcrusade gets in the way of the revolution? No, I didn't, and yet somehow you think you're giving a go at me because of it, and look how you fucking run wild with it to. No, you need to shut the fuck up and re-evaluate what you say before you go and add on to it, somehow as if that helps.
You could have fooled me. Your use of language is typically so melodramatic and over the top that I'm not sure whether to applause your performance or keep it in mind for the top ten Hammy Actors list. I'm having a go at you because it's high time somebody did. You're a dogmatic structuralist who has no sense of principled conversation, just bombast and bluster.

Fucking shitbird trot. Just shut the fuck up and stop posting. Your username itself gives me a damn headache.

Nah. I don't feel like it.

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

I mean honestly, no you're right, Lenin was so wrong to disagree with Kautsky on the war among other things, Marxists were so wrong to disagree with those apolitical anarchists, oh you couldn't be more right. What an obnoxiously stupid thing to say.

I have no idea what this non-sequitur is supposed to mean. Could you clarify your point without being quite so condescending?

[Rafiq]

This is quite possibly the funniest thing I've read on this forum to date. Ty.<3

I think there is much more humor in your sad, confused existence as an ideologue than anything that could be posted. I think there's humor in an orientalist who, in defiance of 'oppressive western values' flirts with Islamism, and then proceeds to act like some kind of edgy, artsy and eccentric intellectual. There's nothing special or unique about you. You're politically, theoretically and ideologically worthless. I mean don't go trotting around like you're some free thinker or contrarian skeptic when you have deep sympathies for reactionary trends. It's pathetic.

[Rafiq]

I have no idea what this non-sequitur is supposed to mean. Could you clarify your point without being quite so condescending?

You said
....such as disagreements over programmatic demands or tactics with regards to the class struggle itself

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

You said


Yes...and? What does the conflict between Lenin and Kautsky have to do with a relatively general statement that I made in regards to your unique notion of tolerance? You're simply trying to deflect attention from your phony prophet-like declarations by bringing up something only tangentially connected to what I said.

[Rafiq]

Did you, or did you not say that disagreements over demands and tactics stand in the way of the class struggle? If so, than Lenin's schism with Kautsky "stood in the way" of the 'class struggle itself'.

[Rafiq]

You didn't even fucking say anything about my notion of tolerance. You didn't challenge my notion of tolerance, you tried to discredit me with regard to what you think I thought stands in the way of the revolution. Stop arguing. You can't win here.

[Ele'ill]

okay so anyways

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

Did you, or did you not say that disagreements over demands and tactics stand in the way of the class struggle? If so, than Lenin's schism with Kautsky "stood in the way" of the 'class struggle itself'.


I did. But your offending post seemed to indicate that an internet poster was standing in the way of revolution, and he should not be tolerated. I think the context of my remark is relatively clear. Not to mention the flaming was rude and unnecessary.

[Jimmie Higgins]

rafiq and mega... Please drop it. You're just baiting each other.

If we do that... Then the trolls win!:crying:

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

rafiq and mega... Please drop it. You're just baiting each other.

If we do that... Then the trolls win!:crying:
Very well. I was getting bored, anyway. We'll meet again, Spider-man!

[Jimmie Higgins]

Wait, is rafiq spider-man or me?

I hope it's me.

[exeexe]

VoX p°PuŁï (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=62988):


'The self' and 'the ego' are illusions, as is the 'individual' as is 'personality.'
If the individual is some kind of an illusion then who gave you permission to speak?

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

I think there is much more humor in your sad, confused existence as an ideologue than anything that could be posted. I think there's humor in an orientalist who, in defiance of 'oppressive western values' flirts with Islamism,

It's weird you can't accept my faith and choice to wear hijab or not. Then again, you are sexist idiot lampooning as an e-'ideologue.' Do you honestly not see how big of an ass you're being? Really, grow up, get another crush.


and then proceeds to act like some kind of edgy, artsy and eccentric intellectual.

All of my statements in regards to art have been of confusion and decidedly anti-art, so exactly am I trying to be artsy? Exactly, I'm not, in fact, I think you'd be hard pressed to find even 3 posts in which I even mention the word. Why is this significant? Because this charge, like all your others is based upon nothing but you being upset and having a personal infatuation with me. Otherwise you would not have taken the time to again peddle this pathetic squashed boy crush diatribe, now would you?


There's nothing special or unique about you.

Do you think your special? Do you think you are unique? If you got ran over by a bus would anyone remember your name or care? Is anyone fucking unique or special? No, this a cockameeny idea people like you have created, fictional social distinctions. You're an ape. I'm an ape. One in a series, no different or special than any before or after; similar but not the same. If you really want to know how I feel about such concepts, there you go.

Where have I ever said there was? I'm sorry, it's you whom says I am or am aspiring to be edgy, artsy, eccentric, etc. These are associations that you have connected to my e-person, not me. Can you grapple with your feelings for me by yourself? Why do you insist on being mean in public?


You're politically, theoretically and ideologically worthless.

Totally.


I mean don't go trotting around like you're some free thinker or contrarian skeptic when you have deep sympathies for reactionary trends. It's pathetic.

I don't have "deep sympathies for blah blah," nor do I trot (which might I point out is offensive to me to even put forward the idea of linkin myself with such a verb) about doing anything. I've been very straight forward in admitting that I am parasitical, conning, lumpenprole loser. Where have I claimed otherwise?

[BIXX]

rafiq and mega... Please drop it. You're just baiting each other.

If we do that... Then the trolls win!:crying:


Do what you must- they already have.


Wait, is rafiq spider-man or me?

I hope it's me.


You'll always be spider-man to me <3

Feel free to trash the most off topic post in the universe.

[ashtonh]

I will be honest. People should cooperate and support each other. They should do this by choice and by being reasonable and educated. Individualism can be good, as long as it is not taken to an extreme. Never going against the state as you state is borderline fascism and cult of personality of the state.

[LeftCrusade]

No, I was trying to say that tolerance in itself means nothing to us, because if something were to get in the way of the revolution it would not be tolerated. Did I say Leftcrusade gets in the way of the revolution? No, I didn't, and yet somehow you think you're giving a go at me because of it, and look how you fucking run wild with it to. No, you need to shut the fuck up and re-evaluate what you say before you go and add on to it, somehow as if that helps.

Fucking shitbird trot. Just shut the fuck up and stop posting. Your username itself gives me a damn headache.

Hi Rafiq,
I find it quite funny you were accusing me of trolling.

Urbandictionary's definition of trolling:
Being a prick on the internet because you can. Typically unleashing one or more cynical or sarcastic remarks on an innocent by-stander, because it's the internet and, hey, you can.

Congratulations! You are now a troll yourself.

[Kaoxic]

Isn't this kind of self-hating?

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

...I immediately pictured the brain-washed / robot people of Superman's Soviet Union in Red Son