Rafiq
24th June 2014, 18:02
And so, Rafiq, the internet hardman, the r-r-revolutionary Marxist of the caesarotsipraist persuasion, the SPUSA member, is revealed to be a common Menshevik. Lister to this: capitalism is not reactionary, nonetheless there are reactionary states. Perhaps, then, these states need some "capitalist development", courtesy of some local Maysky or Zhordania - or some "nice" form of capitalism, contrary to "reactionary capitalism", presided over by some proletarian Kaiser, pardon, Kaisar.
And yes, father Rafiq, the Old Believers were pretty much a backwoods cult, although there were prominent Old Believer industrial-capitalist families. Therefore - Old Believers are bourgeois degenerates and Lenin and Bonch-Bruevich (not to mention Dzerzhinsky himself) were bourgeois degenerates for defending them against the "not reactionary" Tsarist state.
As a result of 870's predictable inability to address, confront or challenge the inarguable truth with regard to his own petty bourgeois intellectual foundations, he would instead of defending the attacks made against him, attempt to in his own cute little way vivisect me.
caesarotsipraist persuasion, the SPUSA member,
870 calls my Marxism distinctly "Caesarotspsiprast" as other users have slandered me in similar ways. It is difficult to respond to, as he pulled it directly out of his ass. I challenge him to find, dig up posts of mine that would in any way indicate I am follower of Tspiprast or a Caesarean socialist. He cannot. We can see clearly how appeals to fantasy are his only means at trying to retain any sort of legitimacy here. 870 attempts to paint me with a brush he pulled out of his ass, according to him I am a reformist, according to him my politics are concurrent with that of the SPUSA's. I have countlessly spoken of my opposition to the politics of the SPUSA, and that of it's members - that my own membership was simply a result of my desire for discussion with leftists outside of the internet. Why then, while knowing this, does the apologist and mouthpiece of politicized pedophilia resort to such petty slander and baseless attacks? Well, a simple look at the post I made is evidence enough of the fact that my points go unchallenged. http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2763462&postcount=256 This cultist rodent seriously, honestly and wholly believes he can challenge the impenetrable, invincible and merciless truth of Marxism with his crypto-role playing petty bourgeois rhetoric. While deciphering and exposing their petite bourgeois ideological tendencies, like cornered rats they can only resort to what appears to be vicious attacks. And let them, they are rats all the same.
And what is the nature of such worthless rhetoric?
And yes, father Rafiq, the Old Believers were pretty much a backwoods cult, although there were prominent Old Believer industrial-capitalist families. Therefore - Old Believers are bourgeois degenerates and Lenin and Bonch-Bruevich (not to mention Dzerzhinsky himself) were bourgeois degenerates for defending them against the "not reactionary" Tsarist state.
Contrary to the reactionary, degenrate postmodern petty bourgeois cults of whom organizations like the Sparts aim their support, the Old Believers were not a 'backwoods cult'. They were a religious minority that had existed since the 17th century who had faced persecution by the Tsarist church, who were in themselves an entity waiting to be politicized. This is quite different from American militias, which formed as a response to further capitalist development and the evolution of liberalism. In all his philistine ignorance, he attempts to make an analogous connection to the Russian equivalent of the protestant movement to anti social, reactionary petty bourgeois cults. It is no wonder, though. He is after all a member of the Spartacist League, which are themselves a cult of the same nature, a la Jim Jones. A quick Google search on the nature of the Spartacit League would reveals this to everyone. But of course 870 desperately attempts to make it as though such an accusation is leveled without base, as if I'm pulling it out of my ass. No, it is very well known that they are a cult, and even those who refuse to label them as such recognize they have frightening cultish tendencies. The Spartacist league, a mere postmodern club, is organized and structured to sustain the membership of those few of 'advanced' consciousness, i.e. Students who think of Communism is a trend and so on. Does he honestly, truly believe this organization could ever exist as a mass movement? Or does he take comfort in knowing they will never achieve legitimacy, so he can hide safely within the confines of their eternal opposition and protest against the 'external' world. Only within the confines of this little 'society' or club are it's members safe from the 'excesses of bourgeois propaganda' and the 'poison' of capitalist society, Communism for then does not derive from existing conditions, with bourgeois society as a presupposition for it's own development, for them Communism is the name they gave their petite bourgeois opposition to liberalism, which is reactionary in nature. A proletarian opposition to liberalism, conversely, recognizes that the achievements of liberalism are the presumption of it's own emancipation. Of course 870, with his philistine, childish way of thinking, will dismiss this as apologia of liberalism, perhaps he himself will accuse me of being a 'liberal' and tie this in with his ridiculous, baseless accusations of reformism (Is this not the pinnacle of ridiculousness, me, a reformist?). Of course we cannot expect him to admit to his own stupidity, to his own intellectual worthlessness. So let him bark like the petty bourgeois dog he is, let him bathe in his own ideological filth. He is a philistine, he will never understand what I'm talking about.
Let us, however, address some of the proclamations made forth by this theoretically adept Marxist
is revealed to be a common Menshevik. Lister to this: capitalism is not reactionary, nonetheless there are reactionary states. Perhaps, then, these states need some "capitalist development", courtesy of some local Maysky or Zhordania - or some "nice" form of capitalism, contrary to "reactionary capitalism", presided over by some proletarian Kaiser, pardon, Kaisar.
Ha, he got me! Of course Menshevism is distinguished by the acknowledgement of the existence of reactionary states! Damn, what a knot I am in now! I wonder how I'll get out of this one!
Such stupidity is beyond shocking. I begin to wonder whether I should give up entirely, whether I should let him actually go on believing this is a feasible argument. Then again, I cannot but admit I derive great enjoyment from thinking of read, powerlessly, of his own invalidity.
We cannot begin to decipher the contradictions of his post here. First, 870 accuses me of being a Third World Caesarean socialist. He then accuses me of being a Menshevik or a "reformist". However the whole point of DNZ formulating Third World Caesarean socialism was to solve the problem of socialism existing in backward, semi-feudal states without resorting to reformism or capitalist development. Whether this is correct or not is a different question, but we must assume that 1. He has no idea of what DNZ was trying to say 2. He has no notion of what being a Menshevik actually means or both - Perhaps he is fully aware that he is contradicting himself, perhaps this is a sort of desperation for him.
Can we even begin to reveal the complete irony that a fucking Trotskyist would accuse me of Menshevism? Trotsky, who was himself a Menshevik at heart until his death? Trotsky, whose Menshevism was completely and wholly present in his initial opposition to Stalin, in his liberalist intellectual foundations? The same Trotsky who was a Menshevik until it was opportune to join the champions of legitimacy?
But let us return to the root of the point, recognizing the existence of reactionary states, especially in this globalized capitalist order, according to 870, entails a sort of Menshevism. By this logic, Lenin himself was a Menshevik, who recognized more than anyone that compared to Western Europe, the Tsarist state was infinitely reactionary. All states which stand in opposition to the globalized development of capitalism and the hegemonic liberal order, from Iran to Milosevic's Serbia, from Saddam to North Korea, are wholly and distincitively reactionary states. They stand as the reactionaries existent within this global community of capitalist states.
While the Communists and reactionaries oppose hegemonic liberalism, there is a difference that Kautsky recognized (that Lenin wholly concurred with). While the proletariat opposes Liberalism, the proletariat opposes Liberalism while pre-supposing the achievements of Liberalism and capitalist development in it's struggle for emancipation. Such reactionary states, as well as the petty bourgeois classes of which 870, that cultist little shit identifies with, oppose the hegemonic order as reactionaries, who seek a revert to the 'old' times, in the case of the existing reactionary states like Russia, a more 'nationally independent' world, or in the case of petty bourgeois organizations like the Sparts, the 'good old times' when Communism still held legitimacy. They shun and despise the world as it has existed today, and seek to replicate tactics and strategies of a previous world, ideology which has no place in the world today. Hence their support for marginalized groups like NAMBLA, hence their support for reactionary militias.
But how can a worthless reactionary like 870 justify support for pedophiles if not by saying "READ DERR STUFF". I Don't need to read the texts of the ICLFLKSDJFLKSJDF-FL, this worthless Trotskyist sect among countless others, to know what they are. Fuck you for thinking that's worth anyone's time. These 'meta' ideological Communists, these 'cosmetic' reds, these reactionaries. What makes them different from any other reactionary militia? Absolutely nothing.
The rest of your post is predictably hilarious. Of course communists do not fight for communism because of some abstract idea of "freedom", which is why we do not support the doomed petite bourgeoisie when it comes to their economic fortunes (but father Rafiq, are you not yourself part of a group that supports the petite-bourgeoisie and their supposed need for a big, strong, macho Leader?), but at the same time we don't want to end up in some social-Stalinist concentration camp run by the likes of Rafiq and others I could mention. We recognise that the revolution has democratic as well as socialist tasks.
Look at how he speaks, he has no notion of the function of ideology, he cosmetically attempts to separate himself from the petite bourgeoisie by saying they are 'doomed', that in his fantasy revolution they will have no place. As Althusser has said, ideology does not say "I am ideology", and petite bourgeois ideologues does not say "I am a petite bourgeois ideologue". You can say whatever the fuck you want, you can fantasize about all of these abstract, baseless and worthless scenarios, but the truth is that you do so as a petite bourgeois ideologue who sympathizes with a petite bourgeois organization, a cult at best. It's so cute how you spout this so-called "Marxism", it's so cute how you tout the same nonsense any other New Left piece of shit boy scout does. You're worthless, 870. You're better off apolitical, and I mean that from the bottom of my heart.
The difference with DNZ, by the way, is that rather than espousing petite bourgeois ideological rhetoric, he recognizes very adamantly of an alliance between the proletariat and the demographically dominant rural petty bourgeoisie cemented through a strong executive power in places where the proletariat is a demographic minority. But he recognizes this as petty bourgeois, he thinks strategically. And is this not the same thing the Bolsheviks had attempts to do, albeit without recognizing it? DNZ recognizes it for what it is.
But I dare you, you piece of shit, I dare you to go and find a single post made by me that would imply I strive for a "Big strong macho leader". All you're good for is touting baseless nonsense, these stupid stereotypical archetypes formulated by your own cult like understanding of Communism. What a waste of time you are.
Oh, and I don't think you could cite instances of the SL intruding on the personal lives of members. How could you, since you've admitted yourself that you haven't read anything by them?
Is this something they would broadcast and reveal to the 'external' world? Are you denying that the Spartacist League infringes on the personal lives of it's members, and has a hand in things such as marriage?
And yes, father Rafiq, the Old Believers were pretty much a backwoods cult, although there were prominent Old Believer industrial-capitalist families. Therefore - Old Believers are bourgeois degenerates and Lenin and Bonch-Bruevich (not to mention Dzerzhinsky himself) were bourgeois degenerates for defending them against the "not reactionary" Tsarist state.
As a result of 870's predictable inability to address, confront or challenge the inarguable truth with regard to his own petty bourgeois intellectual foundations, he would instead of defending the attacks made against him, attempt to in his own cute little way vivisect me.
caesarotsipraist persuasion, the SPUSA member,
870 calls my Marxism distinctly "Caesarotspsiprast" as other users have slandered me in similar ways. It is difficult to respond to, as he pulled it directly out of his ass. I challenge him to find, dig up posts of mine that would in any way indicate I am follower of Tspiprast or a Caesarean socialist. He cannot. We can see clearly how appeals to fantasy are his only means at trying to retain any sort of legitimacy here. 870 attempts to paint me with a brush he pulled out of his ass, according to him I am a reformist, according to him my politics are concurrent with that of the SPUSA's. I have countlessly spoken of my opposition to the politics of the SPUSA, and that of it's members - that my own membership was simply a result of my desire for discussion with leftists outside of the internet. Why then, while knowing this, does the apologist and mouthpiece of politicized pedophilia resort to such petty slander and baseless attacks? Well, a simple look at the post I made is evidence enough of the fact that my points go unchallenged. http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2763462&postcount=256 This cultist rodent seriously, honestly and wholly believes he can challenge the impenetrable, invincible and merciless truth of Marxism with his crypto-role playing petty bourgeois rhetoric. While deciphering and exposing their petite bourgeois ideological tendencies, like cornered rats they can only resort to what appears to be vicious attacks. And let them, they are rats all the same.
And what is the nature of such worthless rhetoric?
And yes, father Rafiq, the Old Believers were pretty much a backwoods cult, although there were prominent Old Believer industrial-capitalist families. Therefore - Old Believers are bourgeois degenerates and Lenin and Bonch-Bruevich (not to mention Dzerzhinsky himself) were bourgeois degenerates for defending them against the "not reactionary" Tsarist state.
Contrary to the reactionary, degenrate postmodern petty bourgeois cults of whom organizations like the Sparts aim their support, the Old Believers were not a 'backwoods cult'. They were a religious minority that had existed since the 17th century who had faced persecution by the Tsarist church, who were in themselves an entity waiting to be politicized. This is quite different from American militias, which formed as a response to further capitalist development and the evolution of liberalism. In all his philistine ignorance, he attempts to make an analogous connection to the Russian equivalent of the protestant movement to anti social, reactionary petty bourgeois cults. It is no wonder, though. He is after all a member of the Spartacist League, which are themselves a cult of the same nature, a la Jim Jones. A quick Google search on the nature of the Spartacit League would reveals this to everyone. But of course 870 desperately attempts to make it as though such an accusation is leveled without base, as if I'm pulling it out of my ass. No, it is very well known that they are a cult, and even those who refuse to label them as such recognize they have frightening cultish tendencies. The Spartacist league, a mere postmodern club, is organized and structured to sustain the membership of those few of 'advanced' consciousness, i.e. Students who think of Communism is a trend and so on. Does he honestly, truly believe this organization could ever exist as a mass movement? Or does he take comfort in knowing they will never achieve legitimacy, so he can hide safely within the confines of their eternal opposition and protest against the 'external' world. Only within the confines of this little 'society' or club are it's members safe from the 'excesses of bourgeois propaganda' and the 'poison' of capitalist society, Communism for then does not derive from existing conditions, with bourgeois society as a presupposition for it's own development, for them Communism is the name they gave their petite bourgeois opposition to liberalism, which is reactionary in nature. A proletarian opposition to liberalism, conversely, recognizes that the achievements of liberalism are the presumption of it's own emancipation. Of course 870, with his philistine, childish way of thinking, will dismiss this as apologia of liberalism, perhaps he himself will accuse me of being a 'liberal' and tie this in with his ridiculous, baseless accusations of reformism (Is this not the pinnacle of ridiculousness, me, a reformist?). Of course we cannot expect him to admit to his own stupidity, to his own intellectual worthlessness. So let him bark like the petty bourgeois dog he is, let him bathe in his own ideological filth. He is a philistine, he will never understand what I'm talking about.
Let us, however, address some of the proclamations made forth by this theoretically adept Marxist
is revealed to be a common Menshevik. Lister to this: capitalism is not reactionary, nonetheless there are reactionary states. Perhaps, then, these states need some "capitalist development", courtesy of some local Maysky or Zhordania - or some "nice" form of capitalism, contrary to "reactionary capitalism", presided over by some proletarian Kaiser, pardon, Kaisar.
Ha, he got me! Of course Menshevism is distinguished by the acknowledgement of the existence of reactionary states! Damn, what a knot I am in now! I wonder how I'll get out of this one!
Such stupidity is beyond shocking. I begin to wonder whether I should give up entirely, whether I should let him actually go on believing this is a feasible argument. Then again, I cannot but admit I derive great enjoyment from thinking of read, powerlessly, of his own invalidity.
We cannot begin to decipher the contradictions of his post here. First, 870 accuses me of being a Third World Caesarean socialist. He then accuses me of being a Menshevik or a "reformist". However the whole point of DNZ formulating Third World Caesarean socialism was to solve the problem of socialism existing in backward, semi-feudal states without resorting to reformism or capitalist development. Whether this is correct or not is a different question, but we must assume that 1. He has no idea of what DNZ was trying to say 2. He has no notion of what being a Menshevik actually means or both - Perhaps he is fully aware that he is contradicting himself, perhaps this is a sort of desperation for him.
Can we even begin to reveal the complete irony that a fucking Trotskyist would accuse me of Menshevism? Trotsky, who was himself a Menshevik at heart until his death? Trotsky, whose Menshevism was completely and wholly present in his initial opposition to Stalin, in his liberalist intellectual foundations? The same Trotsky who was a Menshevik until it was opportune to join the champions of legitimacy?
But let us return to the root of the point, recognizing the existence of reactionary states, especially in this globalized capitalist order, according to 870, entails a sort of Menshevism. By this logic, Lenin himself was a Menshevik, who recognized more than anyone that compared to Western Europe, the Tsarist state was infinitely reactionary. All states which stand in opposition to the globalized development of capitalism and the hegemonic liberal order, from Iran to Milosevic's Serbia, from Saddam to North Korea, are wholly and distincitively reactionary states. They stand as the reactionaries existent within this global community of capitalist states.
While the Communists and reactionaries oppose hegemonic liberalism, there is a difference that Kautsky recognized (that Lenin wholly concurred with). While the proletariat opposes Liberalism, the proletariat opposes Liberalism while pre-supposing the achievements of Liberalism and capitalist development in it's struggle for emancipation. Such reactionary states, as well as the petty bourgeois classes of which 870, that cultist little shit identifies with, oppose the hegemonic order as reactionaries, who seek a revert to the 'old' times, in the case of the existing reactionary states like Russia, a more 'nationally independent' world, or in the case of petty bourgeois organizations like the Sparts, the 'good old times' when Communism still held legitimacy. They shun and despise the world as it has existed today, and seek to replicate tactics and strategies of a previous world, ideology which has no place in the world today. Hence their support for marginalized groups like NAMBLA, hence their support for reactionary militias.
But how can a worthless reactionary like 870 justify support for pedophiles if not by saying "READ DERR STUFF". I Don't need to read the texts of the ICLFLKSDJFLKSJDF-FL, this worthless Trotskyist sect among countless others, to know what they are. Fuck you for thinking that's worth anyone's time. These 'meta' ideological Communists, these 'cosmetic' reds, these reactionaries. What makes them different from any other reactionary militia? Absolutely nothing.
The rest of your post is predictably hilarious. Of course communists do not fight for communism because of some abstract idea of "freedom", which is why we do not support the doomed petite bourgeoisie when it comes to their economic fortunes (but father Rafiq, are you not yourself part of a group that supports the petite-bourgeoisie and their supposed need for a big, strong, macho Leader?), but at the same time we don't want to end up in some social-Stalinist concentration camp run by the likes of Rafiq and others I could mention. We recognise that the revolution has democratic as well as socialist tasks.
Look at how he speaks, he has no notion of the function of ideology, he cosmetically attempts to separate himself from the petite bourgeoisie by saying they are 'doomed', that in his fantasy revolution they will have no place. As Althusser has said, ideology does not say "I am ideology", and petite bourgeois ideologues does not say "I am a petite bourgeois ideologue". You can say whatever the fuck you want, you can fantasize about all of these abstract, baseless and worthless scenarios, but the truth is that you do so as a petite bourgeois ideologue who sympathizes with a petite bourgeois organization, a cult at best. It's so cute how you spout this so-called "Marxism", it's so cute how you tout the same nonsense any other New Left piece of shit boy scout does. You're worthless, 870. You're better off apolitical, and I mean that from the bottom of my heart.
The difference with DNZ, by the way, is that rather than espousing petite bourgeois ideological rhetoric, he recognizes very adamantly of an alliance between the proletariat and the demographically dominant rural petty bourgeoisie cemented through a strong executive power in places where the proletariat is a demographic minority. But he recognizes this as petty bourgeois, he thinks strategically. And is this not the same thing the Bolsheviks had attempts to do, albeit without recognizing it? DNZ recognizes it for what it is.
But I dare you, you piece of shit, I dare you to go and find a single post made by me that would imply I strive for a "Big strong macho leader". All you're good for is touting baseless nonsense, these stupid stereotypical archetypes formulated by your own cult like understanding of Communism. What a waste of time you are.
Oh, and I don't think you could cite instances of the SL intruding on the personal lives of members. How could you, since you've admitted yourself that you haven't read anything by them?
Is this something they would broadcast and reveal to the 'external' world? Are you denying that the Spartacist League infringes on the personal lives of it's members, and has a hand in things such as marriage?