IG/LFI pdfs on the Marxist Internet Archive

[VivalaCuarta]

The Marxists Internet Archive recently published the complete set of English-language magazines and newspapers from the Internationalist Group/League for the Fourth International. You can now download full PDF versions of The Internationalist and Revolution, along with some pamphlets. Supposedly other languages are coming soon. Check it out here (http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/internationalist/index.htm).

[Sinister Intents]

What's important about them? I'm just curious.

[VivalaCuarta]

They are an important source of revolutionary Marxist theory. After the Spartacist League/ICL abandoned Trotskyism in 1996, they have represented the continuity of Trotskyism, which is essential for the workers to take power and achieve socialism.

[Sasha]

[insert obligatory Monty Python - life of brian sketch here]

[Sinister Intents]

They are an important source of revolutionary Marxist theory. After the Spartacist League/ICL abandoned Trotskyism in 1996, they have represented the continuity of Trotskyism, which is essential for the workers to take power and achieve socialism.

Why is Trotsky thought so essential considering the weird tendency of Trotskyist groups to split?

What makes it more essential than Stalin's ideas? Or Kropotkin's? Or Mao's? Or Guevara's

[VivalaCuarta]

Why is Trotsky thought so essential considering the weird tendency of Trotskyist groups to split?

What makes it more essential than Stalin's ideas? Or Kropotkin's? Or Mao's? Or Guevara's

I know it's against the received wisdom here, but I don't think it's a particular "Trotskyist" thing for Trotskyist groups to "split," or have faction fights, or expel factions, etc. It seems to me to be a typical feature of political parties generally. If an organization exists to promote a particular program, a particular course of action, then if there are irreconcilable disagreements over the course of action there will be a split. Certainly Stalinist, Maoist, anarchist, and social democratic groups are not immune to splits, nor are right wing groups, single-issue advocacy kinds of groups. The only relatively stable large parties are the dominant ruling class parties that administer the state.

As to your second question, it depends on what you want, in other words, program. Specifically and most fundamentally, which class should rule. Imperialist anarchists like Kropotkin, and Stalinists like Stalin, Mao and Che Guevara, were for the rule of the bourgeoisie (except, in Stalin's case, in "his" country.) Lenin and Trotsky were for a revolutionary overthrow of the bourgeoisie, for workers to power around the world, as the way to socialism.

How to make that revolution, whether that revolution is just a far off hope with no relevance to the present day (as social democrats see it) or the practical task facing the workers, is a subject of much contention. There are different parties or tendencies that represent different programs, corresponding to the objective interests of different classes.

[Brutus]

They are an important source of revolutionary Marxist theory. After the Spartacist League/ICL abandoned Trotskyism in 1996, they have represented the continuity of Trotskyism, which is essential for the workers to take power and achieve socialism.

How did the SL-ICL abandon Trotskyism in 1996?

[VivalaCuarta]

How did the SL-ICL abandon Trotskyism in 1996?

The bureaucratic expulsions in 1996 (see the documentation in "From a Drift Toward Abstentionism to Desertion from the Class Struggle (http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/internationalist/00-aug-1996-From%20a%20Drift-Drift-optV5.pdf)") cleared the way for a right-wing turn by the remaining leadership of the SL and ICL that had been demoralized by the counterrevolution in the Soviet Union.

The change began with a betrayal, where the ICL ignominiously fled from a struggle it had initiated in Brazil to remove the police from the municipal workers union in Volta Redonda (http://www.internationalist.org/iclcoverstory9609.html).

The ICL then proceeded to revise the Trotskyist program that it had previously upheld, under the pressure of bourgeois "death of communism" triumphalism. It revised its statement of principles, modifying the central thesis of the Transitional Program that “The historical crisis of mankind is reduced to the crisis of the revolutionary leadership.” See this article (http://www.internationalist.org/indefenseoftransprog0498.html) from The Internationalist No. 5 for an early look at the initial implications.

Later, reflecting further accommodation to imperialist pressure, the ICL dropped the demand for independence for Puerto Rico (http://www.internationalist.org/prindependence.html), the largest remaining colony of U.S. imperialism, in the midst of a general strike on the island. This social-democratic position would make the ICL unworthy of admission into Lenin and Trotsky's Communist International.

The ICL also disavowed its earlier slogan calling for workers strikes against imperialist war (http://www.internationalist.org/laborstrikes005.html), and when the "terror war" on Afghanistan broke out in 2001, refused to call for the defeat of U.S. imperialism (http://www.internationalist.org/iclantiamericanbaits.html). From there, it was only a short step to the ICL's greatest betrayal yet, its months-long support for the U.S. imperialist occupation of Haiti (http://www.internationalist.org/sliclrepentantsocialimperialists.html).

[Rottenfruit]

What's important about them? I'm just curious.
the most batshit insane group of communists in the world, they support isis http://www.icl-fi.org/english/wv/1055/isis.html and they support nambla (the northen man boy american love association)

Sparactus league defending roman polanski

http://spartacist.org/english/wh/209/Polanski.html

and let me qoute from this articale by them

Our defence of Polanski, like our longstanding defence of NAMBLA (North American Man/ Boy Love Association, which advocates the decriminalisation of consensual sex between men and boys), is based on our Marxist programme for women’s liberation through socialist revolution. Government out of the bedroom! Hands off Roman Polanski! Drop the charges!

[Kassad]

In response to VivalaCuarta, I find it relevant to post responses from the International Communist League (Fourth Internationalist) regarding the expulsion of those who went on to found the Internationalist Group.

Pabloists of the Second Mobilization: A Shamefaced Defection from Trotskyism in Workers Vanguard no. 648 (5 July 1996): http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/workersvanguard/1996/0648_05_07_1996.pdf

Critical Notes on the "Death of Communism" and the Ideological Conditions of the Post-Soviet World by Joseph Seymour: http://www.icl-fi.org/english/spc/164/criticalnotes.html

Norden's "Group": Shamefaced Defectors From Trotskyism as well as other pamphlets on the Norden group can be ordered from the Spartacist League: http://spartacist.org/otherlit/pamphlets/index.html

More articles can be found regarding the line of the IG on China, the trade unions, Mexico and other topics at http://www.icl-fi.org

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

If only the workers saw this, they would rise up and revolt. :rolleyes:

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

If only the workers saw this, they would rise up and revolt. :rolleyes:

What an incredibly useful and interesting thing to say in this recent topic.

I really do feel sorry for you social-democrats. Since the entire fiasco with austerity with a SYRIZA face, your options have been pretty much to either deny reality, rocking yourself back and forth as you quietly mutter "Varoufakis is fighting the evil German banksters, Varoufakis is fighting the evil German banksters, everyone who says otherwise is an ultra-left sectarian", or to deny that you ever wholeheartedly supported SYRIZA - or Podemos, or whatever other social-democrat pond scum party is popular at the moment.

But this should be an opportunity to re-examine your politics, not to lash out at people who are trying to uphold revolutionary socialism.

[Kill all the fetuses!]

What an incredibly useful and interesting thing to say in this recent topic.

I really do feel sorry for you social-democrats. Since the entire fiasco with austerity with a SYRIZA face, your options have been pretty much to either deny reality, rocking yourself back and forth as you quietly mutter "Varoufakis is fighting the evil German banksters, Varoufakis is fighting the evil German banksters, everyone who says otherwise is an ultra-left sectarian", or to deny that you ever wholeheartedly supported SYRIZA - or Podemos, or whatever other social-democrat pond scum party is popular at the moment.

But this should be an opportunity to re-examine your politics, not to lash out at people who are trying to uphold revolutionary socialism.

I am curious as to what's your position toward Left Platform's stance on the issue? Are you dismissive of them in the same way as you claim above or would you be ready to lend critical support for them at this particular point in time?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I am curious as to what's your position toward Left Platform's stance on the issue? Are you dismissive of them in the same way as you claim above or would you be ready to lend critical support for them at this particular point in time?

Critical support in what? I mean, the Left Platform is an internal faction of SYRIZA, the only way in which I could meaningfully support them is to join SYRIZA. And, ignoring for now the fact that I am not in Greece, I think that would be a poor decision. Attempts to "push" social-democratic parties toward the left have never worked - the logic of the situation is such that, even if the "left wing" has a numerical majority, the right dictates the policies adopted. After all, one must be - realistic, moderate, preserve the party etc.

For their part, the left of SYRIZA needs the right. SYRIZA is an ossified popular front. So the "left", "bourgeois workers' party" element can blame the openly bourgeois element for things like upholding austerity. That is why the tactic of critical electoral support is inapplicable to SYRIZA - instead of exposing them, it allows them to manage the bourgeois state while the "left" of SYRIZA continues to spread the illusion that things would be better if only their own faction was stronger.

Now, needless to say, there are some good-intentioned people in the Left Platform. But for them to be effective they would have to break away from SYRIZA. The politics of the so-called Left Platform, however, make that unlikely, as the idea of a mass populist "leftist" party is too important.

[Kill all the fetuses!]

Most probably I am just abusing the terms. What I meant to ask was if the Left Platform was in the majority and would be ready to attempt to implement what it claims it wants to implement - putting unilateral action on the table as a bargaining chip, being ready to take these if necessary, implementing Thessaloniki program and, probably most importantly - attempting to revitalise and revolutionise the movements of Greek working-class. The latter comes from Poulantza's (?), i.e. the idea that the state should not only be conquered from without, but also from within, if necessary, so that it can help establish dual-power institutions or something along these lines.

While the Left Platform are unambiguously and unconditionally pro-Syriza in that they want to preserve the "union of the radical left" at all costs, recent events show that they are quite successful in building a base within the party. Having had 30% of the party, now, theoretically, they have little bit more than 40%. I do understand what you are saying and agree pretty much entirely, but the thing is that the situation is extremely unstable even within the party itself, which makes it rather likely that the Left Platform will not only act as a left-reserve of Syriza, stabilising its image and providing the party with leftish apologia, but might actually end up taking the reigns of the party itself. So what I wanted to ask was - were such a scenario to occur, would you be dismissive of Syriza then in the same way as you are now?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

What an incredibly useful and interesting thing to say in this recent topic.

Ah, you're going to follow me around the forums now aren't you? :lol:


I really do feel sorry for you social-democrats.

I'm not a social democrat. Why don't you go the whole hog and call me a dirty liberal if it makes you feel that good, though?


Since the entire fiasco with austerity with a SYRIZA face, your options have been pretty much to either deny reality, rocking yourself back and forth as you quietly mutter "Varoufakis is fighting the evil German banksters, Varoufakis is fighting the evil German banksters, everyone who says otherwise is an ultra-left sectarian", or to deny that you ever wholeheartedly supported SYRIZA - or Podemos, or whatever other social-democrat pond scum party is popular at the moment.

I suggest you read my posts and interact with them. This vitriol is really pointless.


But this should be an opportunity to re-examine your politics, not to lash out at people who are trying to uphold revolutionary socialism.

Yeah but this is the question - what is being upheld? Other than the most conservative of traditions of history and intellectual thought, it seems that we communists never (or rarely) stop in the middle of an action, or critique, or programme update, and ask why we are doing something. This is probably why the majority of political actions taken by communists in Europe at least, in the past 20 years, have amounted to nothing. There really are only so many times you can repeat the same mistakes without having some introspection and a bit of change to your own actions and outlook.

[Kill all the fetuses!]

There really are only so many times you can repeat the same mistakes without having some introspection and a bit of change to your own actions and outlook.

This is so ironic that I am beyond words. How can you say that with a straight face is baffling. Pot. Fucking. Kettle. Black.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

This is so ironic that I am beyond words. How can you say that with a straight face is baffling. Pot. Fucking. Kettle. Black.

Because i'm confident that I don't want to end up like you - unable to engage in anything other than verbal abuse online, which is funny because you wouldn't say shit in person, so you just come across, ironically, as the coward.

Anyway, as i've said about a million times, nobody (hopefully) is putting their hope in SYRIZA as a revolutionary project, but I cba to be your broken record.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Ah, you're going to follow me around the forums now aren't you? :lol:

I have no idea what you're going on about. I saw the title of the thread, thought it looked familiar, clicked on it, scrolled down to the last post and, lo and behold, it was you necroposting and being smug and dismissive toward someone's actually helpful post (which is itself a rarity on RevLeft).

And of course, on the ostensible home of the revolutionary left, this sort of reaction is reserved for - actual socialists. People can spam links to their blog, if they refrain from talking about socialism and instead talk about THE GLOBAL NEOLIBERAL DICTATORSHIP or "corpsocialists" or whatever, they can post primmo vomit however much they want, and no one will bat an eyelid.


I'm not a social democrat. Why don't you go the whole hog and call me a dirty liberal if it makes you feel that good, though?

Well if it walks like a cat and quacks like a cat and nibbles Londo to death like a cat, it might just be a cat. Or, rather, if you give political support to social democrats, if you advocate a "better" capitalism, and if you attack revolutionary socialists, then you're a social democrat.

It doesn't matter how much rhetoric you use to cover your position up, anyone can see through it.

Liberals actually deserve commendation for seeing through SYRIZA's bullshit far, far before most ostensible "socialists".


I suggest you read my posts and interact with them. This vitriol is really pointless.

I am reading your posts. Including all those posts where you attack anyone who dares criticise SYRIZA or your beloved "left populism" in general.


Yeah but this is the question - what is being upheld? Other than the most conservative of traditions of history and intellectual thought, it seems that we communists never (or rarely) stop in the middle of an action, or critique, or programme update, and ask why we are doing something. This is probably why the majority of political actions taken by communists in Europe at least, in the past 20 years, have amounted to nothing. There really are only so many times you can repeat the same mistakes without having some introspection and a bit of change to your own actions and outlook.

Oh, projecting much? "We communists" ("we") do stop and reflect on why we are doing what we do. We change our positions, we change our activity. Of course there are groups who cling religiously to the same failed tailist perspective - and of course, you sympathise with these groups. But don't think every group out there is Left Unity or whatever.


Because i'm confident that I don't want to end up like you - unable to engage in anything other than verbal abuse online, which is funny because you wouldn't say shit in person, so you just come across, ironically, as the coward.

Oh, and I imagine you are doing so much. No, if you were doing anything worthwhile, you wouldn't be super excited that "people are talking about leftism" (as if "leftism" makes any sense without extensive qualifiers). So this entire "I'm more of an activist than you" shtick is on that borderline between sad and hilarious.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Most probably I am just abusing the terms. What I meant to ask was if the Left Platform was in the majority and would be ready to attempt to implement what it claims it wants to implement - putting unilateral action on the table as a bargaining chip, being ready to take these if necessary, implementing Thessaloniki program and, probably most importantly - attempting to revitalise and revolutionise the movements of Greek working-class. The latter comes from Poulantza's (?), i.e. the idea that the state should not only be conquered from without, but also from within, if necessary, so that it can help establish dual-power institutions or something along these lines.

While the Left Platform are unambiguously and unconditionally pro-Syriza in that they want to preserve the "union of the radical left" at all costs, recent events show that they are quite successful in building a base within the party. Having had 30% of the party, now, theoretically, they have little bit more than 40%. I do understand what you are saying and agree pretty much entirely, but the thing is that the situation is extremely unstable even within the party itself, which makes it rather likely that the Left Platform will not only act as a left-reserve of Syriza, stabilising its image and providing the party with leftish apologia, but might actually end up taking the reigns of the party itself. So what I wanted to ask was - were such a scenario to occur, would you be dismissive of Syriza then in the same way as you are now?

Apologies, I completely forgot about this (if it's any consolation, my PM backlog is even worse). The first thing I would question is the assumption that numerical predominance means control. There are several historical examples to the contrary - even if we ignore cases where one side won the vote, but another won the count (the conflict between the left and the centre in the Communist Party of Italy, for example). In the old SPA, for example, before the split of the CPA and the CLPA, the left actually had a majority, but could not act on that majority without splitting the party, which the future CPA was reluctant to do, and the future CPLA found unthinkable.

The situation with SYRIZA is even worse, in a sense, because SYRIZA is a popular front. The presence of bourgeois elements, even tiny, even "the shadow of the bourgeoisie", which is how Trotsky characterised the liberal parties of the Spanish popular front, not only guarantees a bourgeois-liberal programme, it means that even the failure of the popular front means nothing. Liberals blame the "radicals", "leftists" blame the liberals, and two months later the popular front has reemerged, under a new name and maybe management. The Spanish PORE has a habit of burning through popular fronts like that. Today it's Podemos, yesterday it was IU, who knows what it will be tomorrow (they don't even wait to get into government to jump ship, which is an excellent invention that saves everybody a lot of time and I hope more reformist groups adopt it).

But, alright, let's ignore all of this, let's say there are no bourgeois elements and the Left Platform are in control of SYRIZA. Let's also say the leaders of the Platform believe in their own statements (9mm recently posted a statement by the Trotskyist Group of Greece, where they point out that one of the leaders of the Left Platform is in charge of privatisation - and has predictably backtracked from his earlier opposition to further privatisation; now I haven't been able to keep up with news from Greece for the last few weeks, but for what it's worth I know some people from the Trotskyist Group and can personally vouch for their integrity).

What then? Well, people are presenting two scenarios here. First, that the Left Platform would somehow lead the workers to revolution, or at least to greater class consciousness. You sort of hint at this with the mention of Poulantzas. Back in the day, this used to be called "left" Eurocommunism - the idea that the bourgeois state was transformed by the labour movement into a fairly benevolent organ, not necessarily expressing the interest of the bourgeoisie. Poulantzas went further than that, actually - he completely "revised" the Marxist theory of class until nothing remained of it, and so on. In any case, historical experience pronounces against this theory. Consider Chile, for example, in the period of the Popular Front, or Spain during the Civil War... to "conquer the state from within" means for people who would be leaders of revolutionary workers to manage the bourgeois state, with its coercive apparatus. So when the revolutionary workers move against the state, their would-be leaders are threatened, and have to rely on the bourgeois police and military apparatus, whether this takes the form of Allende's reliance on Pinochet, Kerensky's reliance on Kornilov, etc.

The second scenario says, alright, SYRIZA, or the Left Platform, will not lead the revolution. But it will somehow "end austerity". And the first thing is that this would mean that meaningful, permanent reform can be simply given by the bourgeois state. But perhaps more importantly, I think this entire way of looking at the problem - social democracy vs. austerity. In truth both austerity and measures thought of as social-democratic seem to be absolutely necessary for the continued functioning of capitalism at this point - or perhaps another round of exporting bombs into people. Any bourgeois government that rejects austerity, or that tries to hold on to Hayekian free-market voodoo, will be thrown out of office as the profits of the bourgeoisie dry out. (This is why the US government effectively nationalised several banks under Bush.) So the question is not "social-democracy or austerity" - any government managing capitalism needs to implement both sets of measures.

[Atsumari]

lol this thread is reminding me why many workers today really want nothing to do with the radical left anymore

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

The irony of a self-proclaimed "Asian nationalist" (and I've read enough of your posts to know you weren't kidding) writing this is astounding. It also reminds me why I don't really see any point in RL these days, from the intrusive ads to the continued shitposting by social-democrats, nationalists, primmos, anti-Germans and others who are about as "socialist", "leftist" and "progressive" as fascists. Less so in the case of primmos.

[Kill all the fetuses!]

What then? Well, people are presenting two scenarios here. First, that the Left Platform would somehow lead the workers to revolution, or at least to greater class consciousness. You sort of hint at this with the mention of Poulantzas. Back in the day, this used to be called "left" Eurocommunism - the idea that the bourgeois state was transformed by the labour movement into a fairly benevolent organ, not necessarily expressing the interest of the bourgeoisie. Poulantzas went further than that, actually - he completely "revised" the Marxist theory of class until nothing remained of it, and so on. In any case, historical experience pronounces against this theory. Consider Chile, for example, in the period of the Popular Front, or Spain during the Civil War... to "conquer the state from within" means for people who would be leaders of revolutionary workers to manage the bourgeois state, with its coercive apparatus. So when the revolutionary workers move against the state, their would-be leaders are threatened, and have to rely on the bourgeois police and military apparatus, whether this takes the form of Allende's reliance on Pinochet, Kerensky's reliance on Kornilov, etc.

I wouldn't suggest anything like the Left Platform "leading Greece to revolution" or anything of that sort. Don't mistake my question for some uncritical support for the Left Platform. The point is not that it would lead to revolution or even attempt to do so, but that it would help to build the movements, more so than the current leadership anyway. And I do agree that it will necessary crush the movements in so far as they start to meaningfully threaten the State and so on, that's rather obvious. The point, however, is that it would provide more breathing space for the movements to develop in so far as it would even attempt to implement any of its promises on this particular issue. So if we take Chile as an example, while in the last analysis everything you say stands and I agree with that, it still provided more space for class-consciousness and movements to develop etc. So I was asking more from a tactical short-term perspective rather than a long-term strategic one (if this distinction makes sense to you?).


The second scenario says, alright, SYRIZA, or the Left Platform, will not lead the revolution. But it will somehow "end austerity". And the first thing is that this would mean that meaningful, permanent reform can be simply given by the bourgeois state. But perhaps more importantly, I think this entire way of looking at the problem - social democracy vs. austerity. In truth both austerity and measures thought of as social-democratic seem to be absolutely necessary for the continued functioning of capitalism at this point - or perhaps another round of exporting bombs into people. Any bourgeois government that rejects austerity, or that tries to hold on to Hayekian free-market voodoo, will be thrown out of office as the profits of the bourgeoisie dry out. (This is why the US government effectively nationalised several banks under Bush.) So the question is not "social-democracy or austerity" - any government managing capitalism needs to implement both sets of measures.

Yeah, austerity right now is pretty much a necessity due to the logic of how global capitalism functions, there is no disagreement there. However, in this same vein I have been arguing that social-democracy is dead in so far as social conditions for its existence are gone (with the advent of neoliberalism, global capitalism etc). I find it curious why would you claim that social-democratic measures are necessary when I social-democracy with these measures/reforms have been actively unravelled for decades now. Care to explain?

[Atsumari]

The irony of a self-proclaimed "Asian nationalist" (and I've read enough of your posts to know you weren't kidding) writing this is astounding. It also reminds me why I don't really see any point in RL these days, from the intrusive ads to the continued shitposting by social-democrats, nationalists, primmos, anti-Germans and others who are about as "socialist", "leftist" and "progressive" as fascists. Less so in the case of primmos.
Sorry for the delay, it has been some time since I last had access to a laptop without being super sleep deprived.
You are among the most spoiled and isolated people I have met on RevLeft. You speak of working class politics and what is best for them while knowing nothing about them. You condemn any kind of legislation or action done by workers that would make life much more bearable for the workers as being "bourgeois" and "reformist" while you yourself reap the benefits of such legislation in life. This is why I despise people like you similarly to Mao. Mao happily told the people of China to work long unforgiving hours and one day, that 8 hour work day will come. Likewise, you self-righteously condemn any kind of action to alleviate any kind of pain suffered by the working class because it is not revolutionary. I do not disagree that these things are reformist, but until you see reality for yourself, or better yet, experience it, I may try to take you a bit more seriously.
And I hope you did not seriously try to say that your political rivals are "as "socialist", "leftist" and "progressive" as fascists." If so, then this kind of intellectual laziness deserves a huge "fuck you."

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I don't want to dogpile, but it does seem just a little bit ridiculous to claim that posting PDFs to the internet or even just reading PDFs on the internet represents the act of 'upholding revolutionary socialism'. From perusing all the debates that have managed to spill into every fucking thread at this point, I would say the 'reformist' syriza supporters and the 'revolutionary' kke supporters are doing exactly the same thing: not shit. With the possible exception of FSL who interestingly enough comes off as the most balanced person in the anti-syriza crew, while simultaneously being the only person who actually has skin in the game..

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Sorry for the delay, it has been some time since I last had access to a laptop without being super sleep deprived.
You are among the most spoiled and isolated people I have met on RevLeft. You speak of working class politics and what is best for them while knowing nothing about them. You condemn any kind of legislation or action done by workers that would make life much more bearable for the workers as being "bourgeois" and "reformist" while you yourself reap the benefits of such legislation in life. This is why I despise people like you similarly to Mao. Mao happily told the people of China to work long unforgiving hours and one day, that 8 hour work day will come. Likewise, you self-righteously condemn any kind of action to alleviate any kind of pain suffered by the working class because it is not revolutionary. I do not disagree that these things are reformist, but until you see reality for yourself, or better yet, experience it, I may try to take you a bit more seriously.
And I hope you did not seriously try to say that your political rivals are "as "socialist", "leftist" and "progressive" as fascists." If so, then this kind of intellectual laziness deserves a huge "fuck you."

VivalaCuarta is my "political rival". They are also a socialist. Social-democrats are not my "political rivals", and yes, they are about as leftist as fascists. Which is to say, not at all. And of course, primmos are worse than fascists, as fascists at least stand for capitalism, a combined mode of production that allows for a complex society, and for most of the existing population to not starve to death in the mud.

The rest of the your post is predictable reformist belly-aching. First of all, you have absolutely no idea who I am, so kindly stop pretending. I am currently working at a job where - well, to be honest, I haven't been paid ever. And I'm not even formally employed. But you know what else has never happened? For the bourgeoisie to just give out reforms because the party in power calls itself social-democratic, or socialist, or communist, or Geoff, or whatever. Reforms are won by working-class militancy. Reformists undermine that militancy and make even reforms impossible.


I don't want to dogpile, but it does seem just a little bit ridiculous to claim that posting PDFs to the internet or even just reading PDFs on the internet represents the act of 'upholding revolutionary socialism'.

This is ridiculous, no one claimed that it was. The IG try to uphold revolutionary socialism by extending the Marxist analysis to current events, educating new cadres etc. I have my disagreements with them, but to say they are the same as people who call on the proletariat to support the fucking bourgeois government in Greece, a coalition between reformist traitors and LAOS-lite (AX-zero), is just mind-boggling.

KATF, I'll reply to you later, sorry.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

But this should be an opportunity to re-examine your politics, not to lash out at people who are trying to uphold revolutionary socialism.

This was your response to vlad, and since he is not in direct communication with any of these political groups, I can only assume the people you are referring to are the people he is in direct communication with in this thread and a dozen like it. I'm not criticizing your position on syriza, you're just all being very over the top and it's irritating to read through. You guys are not facing off in the streets, a lot of you are not even on the same continent. There's no reason you can't all calm the fuck down and have a normal discussion that doesn't punish the rest of us.

[Kill all the fetuses!]

KATF, I'll reply to you later, sorry.

If you have little time or don't think it's really worth responding, then please don't, no hard feelings.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I wouldn't suggest anything like the Left Platform "leading Greece to revolution" or anything of that sort. Don't mistake my question for some uncritical support for the Left Platform. The point is not that it would lead to revolution or even attempt to do so, but that it would help to build the movements, more so than the current leadership anyway. And I do agree that it will necessary crush the movements in so far as they start to meaningfully threaten the State and so on, that's rather obvious. The point, however, is that it would provide more breathing space for the movements to develop in so far as it would even attempt to implement any of its promises on this particular issue. So if we take Chile as an example, while in the last analysis everything you say stands and I agree with that, it still provided more space for class-consciousness and movements to develop etc. So I was asking more from a tactical short-term perspective rather than a long-term strategic one (if this distinction makes sense to you?).

The distinction makes sense, but I'm not sure it's a good one, if that makes sense in turn. First of all, even if it is true that certain kinds of governments provide more "breathing space", the end result is, as we seem to agree, that the workers' movement will either remain ineffective or, worse, an appendage to one bourgeois party, or it will challenge the power of the bourgeoisie in some manner. And when it does, if it is defeated it will undo whatever progress has been made in terms of movement-building. And support for left-social-democratic governments isn't usually a sign of a strong workers' movement capable of taking on the bourgeois state.

(The same pretty much goes for pop-front anti-fascism.)

Second, I'm not sure the idea about "breathing space" is true. I think it's more likely social-democratic governments are the result of a defeat or weakness of the workers' movement; the first substantive Labour government being elected after the failed UK general strike is a good example, I think. So what we're seeing is not so much the expansion of workers' movements but their last efforts, as they become auxiliary forces for one or the other bourgeois parties.


Yeah, austerity right now is pretty much a necessity due to the logic of how global capitalism functions, there is no disagreement there. However, in this same vein I have been arguing that social-democracy is dead in so far as social conditions for its existence are gone (with the advent of neoliberalism, global capitalism etc). I find it curious why would you claim that social-democratic measures are necessary when I social-democracy with these measures/reforms have been actively unravelled for decades now. Care to explain?

Classical social-democracy, in the sense of the bourgeois government buying class peace by ceding some ground to the working class, is pretty much dead - not so much because of "neoliberalism", I think, but because of the fall of the Soviet Union. But certain social-democratic policies, that many people consider synonymous with social-democracies, like nationalisation and regulation, are pretty much necessary because at this stage, capitalism has to be saved from the stupidity of capitalists every so often.


This was your response to vlad, and since he is not in direct communication with any of these political groups, I can only assume the people you are referring to are the people he is in direct communication with in this thread and a dozen like it. I'm not criticizing your position on syriza, you're just all being very over the top and it's irritating to read through. You guys are not facing off in the streets, a lot of you are not even on the same continent. There's no reason you can't all calm the fuck down and have a normal discussion that doesn't punish the rest of us.

His criticism was obviously directed at the IG. And it's part of a pattern of a pattern of affected "self"-criticism over how "the left" isn't "doing anything". The usual sort of hyper-activist, social-democratic keening. Also, there's no conversation here. The thread was pretty much what it was until he decided to shit it up. I think I'm within my rights to register my annoyance at that kind of behaviour, particularly since this is supposed to be a site where people who have made up their mind on the whole reformism or revolution thing can discuss things without every thread devolving into "BUT WAI DONT YOU GUISE VOTE FOR OBAMA".


If you have little time or don't think it's really worth responding, then please don't, no hard feelings.

Nah, I think your contribution here is interesting, it's just that my schedule is pretty crazy and I wanted to get some things out before I had to leave, saving the substantive reply for later.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

His criticism was obviously directed at the IG.

It was a flippant remark. You need to calm the fuck down. I don't really have any strong feelings on the IG. I don't know them personally.



And it's part of a pattern of a pattern of affected "self"-criticism over how "the left" isn't "doing anything".

The left is doing plenty, to be fair. It's just that it is doing the wrong things and isn't noticed by anybody except the tired old core of activists.


The usual sort of hyper-activist, social-democratic keening.

Calling something social-democratic isn't a valid critique, though. You keep repeating this, and words like 'reformist', without actually explaining why you are using such words and why social democracy is the wrong course of action. If anything, you are enabling social democrats and reformists by taking up positions that are patently absurd and rude.


Also, there's no conversation here. The thread was pretty much what it was until he decided to shit it up. I think I'm within my rights to register my annoyance at that kind of behaviour, particularly since this is supposed to be a site where people who have made up their mind on the whole reformism or revolution thing can discuss things without every thread devolving into "BUT WAI DONT YOU GUISE VOTE FOR OBAMA".

You're so fucking boring I can't even be bothered to tear this pile of lies apart. I have tried, mostly without success, to simply posit my own - new - opinions on developments in Greece and in turn, you are others have resorted from the off to name-calling.

I mean, on one level it's pathetic because you would never say such shit face-to-face, so I don't know why you're saying it here, but on another level it's massively offensive because you are just shutting conversation down. I now feel as though there is no room for me and others to even debate developments in Greece, because as soon as we even consider whether SYRIZAs actions have merits, we get name-called and abused.

[Sharia Lawn]

The left is doing plenty, to be fair. It's just that it is doing the wrong things and isn't noticed by anybody except the tired old core of activists.

Wait, what happened to this:


There is no such thing as people getting politics 'wrong'. People have different ideas. That is what socialist democracy should be about.

My, how things change in the span of one week!

[VivalaCuarta]

Izvestia, why are you pestering people about what they said a week ago? Live in the moment, make it up as you go along, that is the essence of revolutionary politics.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Wait, what happened to this:



My, how things change in the span of one week!

lol. Poor choice of words.

What I meant was - not that people's 'politics' are wrong per se, but that the left (and I include people with whom I agree on political philosophy with) have been following the wrong strategy of party-building and an almost wilful irrelevance for the best part of 20-30 years. I would include myself in this criticism too.

[blake 3:17]

OMG -- you sort of contradicted yourself on some weird sectarian Left discussion where folks were being nasty at you! The struggle is over :rolleyes:

[Sharia Lawn]

OMG -- you sort of contradicted yourself on some weird sectarian Left discussion where folks were being nasty at you! The struggle is over :rolleyes:

Yes, a contradiction which points out what I was explaining all along. Whatever lip service Mr. Vladimir pays to multicultural political diversity, he has a very clear vision of a correct path forward and an incorrect path forward politically speaking. He wants to pretend he doesn't, so that we can't pin him on the fact that his path is the social democratic one. But the truth comes out when he's debating a revolutionary, whose politics he can't resist calling "wrong" as he did above. As I said in the other thread, it's all about diversity in his political milieu until a revolutionary shows up, at which point the acceptance of different political views meets its clear limitation and vehement denunciations issue forth. It's not surprising that you leap to his defense, as your politics appear to be social democratic, too. (The moderating team is chock full of them, isn't it?) Even that designation might be too kind to you:


As for the particulars, Obama's win was a victory.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

It was a flippant remark. You need to calm the fuck down. I don't really have any strong feelings on the IG. I don't know them personally.

M-hm, I need to "calm the fuck down", because obviously I'm the one who is being emotional here. Noted. And yes, your initial post was a "flippant remark", or at least an attempt at making a flippant remark. That's the point. Apparently you recognise you can't say anything substantive without compromising yourself further, so you post these passive-aggressive attempts at humour (and I'm being charitable here).


The left is doing plenty, to be fair. It's just that it is doing the wrong things and isn't noticed by anybody except the tired old core of activists.

If you want to be noticed, wear a penguin suit. Works every time, from my experience. If you want people to fawn over you, write long articles with social-democratic politics and needlessly "radical" rhetoric. Maybe you'll get the bourgeois government in Argentina to dedicate a TV programme to you. Or go for the niche market and join one of the splinters of the old WRP. In time, you too can be recognised as the one true heir of Gerry Healy.

But if you want to be a communist, then get used to the fact that communism is never going to be popular, it's never going to be "noticed", it will always be marginal - until there is a pre-revolutionary situation. If you find that hard to stomach, then - well, I would say leave. But I think you already have.


Calling something social-democratic isn't a valid critique, though.

Pointing out that something is social-democratic is a valid criticism, at least on the level on which this conversation should be taking place.


You keep repeating this, and words like 'reformist', without actually explaining why you are using such words and why social democracy is the wrong course of action. If anything, you are enabling social democrats and reformists by taking up positions that are patently absurd and rude.

This sort of thinking is precisely why this site can harbor "Asian nationalists", people who refuse to talk about their politics, primmos and so on. This is the alleged home of the revolutionary left, and the thread we are in is outside of Learning or OI. So, no, I don't have to "explain why social-democracy is the wrong course of action", the fact that you are an unrestricted member of RL with a certain amount of posts sort of implies that you've learned that.

If every conversation is going to turn into why social-democracy can't work, the site staff could at least do us all a favour and rename the site Corrington Post or something like that.


You're so fucking boring I can't even be bothered to tear this pile of lies apart. I have tried, mostly without success, to simply posit my own - new - opinions on developments in Greece and in turn, you are others have resorted from the off to name-calling.

Calling social-democracy what it is is not "name-calling". And you're supporting a bourgeois government that doesn't even have the old "anti-austerity" excuse anymore, what do you expect, exactly?


I mean, on one level it's pathetic because you would never say such shit face-to-face

Of course I would. Just who the hell do you think you are, king of the universe? Get over yourself.


so I don't know why you're saying it here, but on another level it's massively offensive because you are just shutting conversation down. I now feel as though there is no room for me and others to even debate developments in Greece, because as soon as we even consider whether SYRIZAs actions have merits, we get name-called and abused.

The room for praising the bourgeois government of Greece is, I believe, called the OI forum.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

[QUOTE=Xhar-Xhar Binks;2824133]M-hm, I need to "calm the fuck down", because obviously I'm the one who is being emotional here. Noted. And yes, your initial post was a "flippant remark", or at least an attempt at making a flippant remark. That's the point.

I cannot control you getting emotional over me making a flippant remark. I'm sorry if it got your hormones raging.


Apparently you recognise you can't say anything substantive without compromising yourself further, so you post these passive-aggressive attempts at humour (and I'm being charitable here).


I'm glad you included 'apparently'. You are pissed that I made a throwaway remark. My thousands of solid posts here demonstrate I have at least some ability to say substantive, un-compromising things about various issues of political interest.


If you want to be noticed, wear a penguin suit. Works every time, from my experience. If you want people to fawn over you, write long articles with social-democratic politics and needlessly "radical" rhetoric. Maybe you'll get the bourgeois government in Argentina to dedicate a TV programme to you. Or go for the niche market and join one of the splinters of the old WRP. In time, you too can be recognised as the one true heir of Gerry Healy.


But if you want to be a communist, then get used to the fact that communism is never going to be popular, it's never going to be "noticed", it will always be marginal - until there is a pre-revolutionary situation. If you find that hard to stomach, then - well, I would say leave. But I think you already have.


Who the fuck are you to have a monopoly over what it means and does not mean to be a communist? Seriously, if you want to take ownership of the term 'communism' and imprint upon it such a depressingly authoriatarian, rigid, and bland meaning, then all you will do is contribute to the continued existence of communism as a political philosophy in the dustbin of the present and the future.


Pointing out that something is social-democratic is a valid criticism, at least on the level on which this conversation should be taking place.

No, it's not. Ascribing a label to something is a point, or claim, at best. It doesn't explain anything. By your logic, any conversation can be shut down by just calling an opposing political view 'social democratic', or 'liberal' - which is what goes on a lot of the time on here and IRL, and it sucks big time.


The room for praising the bourgeois government of Greece is, I believe, called the OI forum.

As far as i'm aware, revolutionary socialism has never excluded the use of elections as a short- to medium-term political strategy. If it did, then every original bolshevik and their supporters would be confined to OI.

And seriously, stop trying to ascribe a political position to me that is not correct. As I said, I give critical support to the SYRIZA project. Emphasis on the critical. Emphasis on this being a short- to medium-term strategy, not some social-democratic pipedream of introducing some Wellsian 'better world'.