Sectarianism in Greece

[flouPOWER]

Hey guys. I live in Greece and I've noticed there is a lot of sectarianism.To Further explain: there is Revolutionary CPG (Communist Party of Greece), CPG, M-L CPG, CPG M-L, Movement for CPG and it goes on.
I'm a trotskyist and a member of SYRIZA (Coalition of Radical Left) and I believe everybody should be united (regardless of tendecy) under a platform party. SYRIZA is known to unite people of different tendecies of Marxism.
KKE (CPG) is very very dogmatic and manifests itself as Marxist-Leninist and Stalinist, anti-revisionist, anti-reformist (Κνίτες μην μου κάνετε επίθεση :P).
Should everybody unite their powers for socialism?? What is your opinion?

[PhoenixAsh]

KKE isn't very popular on this forum...except with a few people who are sympathisers/members.

I don't think a lot of people would want to work in a coalition with KKE or think working with them is possible. On the other hand...not a lot of members would think SYRIZA revolutionary. Perhaps as a member of SYRIZA you could enlighten us on that point?

[jullia]

Always better to unite the strengh. Especially in a country like Greece where there are some political murder.

[BIXX]

I'm opposed to left unity. Period.

[Tim Cornelis]

SYRIZA is also known to unite people of different social classes.

http://www.enetenglish.gr/?i=news.en.article&id=1980
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/07/04/gree-j04.html

You should see the amount of far-left parties in 1970s Portugal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_legislative_election,_1976

[motion denied]

Left unity is only possible under a common program reached through everyday struggles. Unity in abstracto for the sake of unity is useless.

[jullia]

It's more useless to divide leftist people. Especially when nazi kill people on the street and when the country is in the middle of crisis who will probably have long term consequences.

[Zukunftsmusik]

What's idiotic is this idea that "sectarianism" (sometimes used properly, mostly not) is just some arbitrary product of fate that you could sweep away by pure will and - voilá!: strong working class! No left unity will cure Greece's crisis or rid them of neo-nazi gangs - only collective class activity can. As per usual, Pannekoek is spot on:



With the intensification of the workers' struggle, the might of the enemy also increases and besets the workers with renewed doubts and fears as to which road is best. And every doubt brings on splits, contradictions, and fractional battles within the labor movement. It is futile to bewail these conflicts and splits as harmful in dividing and weakening the working class. The working class is not weak because it is split up—it is split up because it is weak. Because the enemy is powerful and the old methods of warfare prove unavailing, the working class must seek new methods. Its task will not become clear as the result of enlightenment from above; it must discover its tasks through hard work, through thought and conflict of opinions. It must find its own way; therefore, the internal struggle. It must relinquish old ideas and illusions and adopt new ones, and because this is difficult, therefore the magnitude and severity of the splits.

Nor can we delude ourselves into believing that this period of party and ideological strife is only temporary and will make way to renewed harmony. True, in the course of the class struggle there are occasions when all forces unite in a great achievable objective and the revolution is carried on with the might of a united working class. But after that, as after every victory, come differences on the question: what next? And even if the working class is victorious, it is always confronted by the most difficult task of subduing the enemy further, of reorganizing production, creating new order. It is impossible that all workers, all strata and groups, with their often still diverse interests should, at this stage, agree on all matters and be ready for united and decisive further action. They will find the true course only after the sharpest controversies and conflicts and only thus achieve clarity.

If, in this situation, persons with the same fundamental conceptions unite for the discussion of practical steps and seek clarification through discussions and propagandize their conclusions, such groups might be called parties, but they would be parties in an entirely different sense from those of today. Action, the actual class struggle, is the task of the working masses themselves, in their entirety, in their real groupings as factory and millhands, or other productive groups, because history and economy have placed them in the position where they must and can fight the working class struggle. It would be insane if the supporters of one party were to go on strike while those of another continue to work. But both tendencies will defend their positions on strike or no strike in the factory meetings, thus affording an opportunity to arrive at a well founded decision. The struggle is so great, the enemy so powerful that only the masses as a whole can achieve a victory—the result of the material and moral power of action, unity and enthusiasm, but also the result of the mental force of thought, of clarity. In this lies the great importance of such parties or groups based on opinions: that they bring clarity in their conflicts, discussions and propaganda. They are the organs of the self-enlightenment of the working class by means of which the workers find their way to freedom

[flouPOWER]

. On the other hand...not a lot of members would think SYRIZA revolutionary. Perhaps as a member of SYRIZA you could enlighten us on that point?[/QUOTE]

Syriza is revolutionary. Socially and Economically. It will make Greece a secular and a socialist state. Most members here tend to believe that SYRIZA is reformist,but this is not the point.
Making the banks public, higher taxes for rich people, free electricity and water and it goes on... isn't that radical? Don't listen to members of KKE youth which criticise SYRIZA. Stupid Stalinists lol :P

[flouPOWER]

You're not even leftist. Please don't comment. You're not an anarchist, not a marxist.. You're just an anticapitalist. Anarcho-fascists are anticapitalist too you know. I dont appreciate your opinion (with all the respect :) ) (To dirty doxxer)

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Syriza is revolutionary. Socially and Economically. It will make Greece a secular and a socialist state. Most members here tend to believe that SYRIZA is reformist,but this is not the point.
Making the banks public, higher taxes for rich people, free electricity and water and it goes on... isn't that radical?

Well, no.

All of these things were done by bourgeois government of e.g. Roosevelt, Mitterrand and so on. And they were done, explicitly, to save the bourgeoisie from their own stupidity. What SYRIZA proposes is pretty much the same.

And if we don't think that what SYRIZA is doing has anything to do with socialism (to clarify the "we" thing a bit, I sympathise with, and have indeed talked to, members of the Trotskyist Group of Greece), why should we unite with them? Particularly since SYRIZA is a permanent popular front with bourgeois elements, so even critical electoral support for the purpose of unmasking the SYRIZA leadership is out of the question.

[Tim Cornelis]

You're not even leftist. Please don't comment. You're not an anarchist, not a marxist.. You're just an anticapitalist. Anarcho-fascists are anticapitalist too you know. I dont appreciate your opinion (with all the respect :) )

I don't know against who this was directed, but it's ironically sectarian. A lot of what you say contradicts Marxism, so are you a Marxist?


Syriza is revolutionary. Socially and Economically. It will make Greece a secular and a socialist state. Most members here tend to believe that SYRIZA is reformist,but this is not the point.
Making the banks public, higher taxes for rich people, free electricity and water and it goes on... isn't that radical? Don't listen to members of KKE youth which criticise SYRIZA. Stupid Stalinists lol :P

A social revolution in the Marxist sense is characterised by the supersession of the social relations of production, from which, combined with some other features, comprises the economic base on which the superstructure arises. Social revolutions happen when the development of the material productive forces come into conflict with the current social relations of production. In capitalism, production has a social character but it is executed privately, meaning the social character of labour has to be expressed through commodity exchange. A socialist revolution would entail the replacement of wage-labour by associated labour, after which commodity production disappears entirely. SYRIZA doesn't advocate this at all. How then can there be a 'socialist' or even a 'workers' state' in the Marxist sense? Base precedes superstructure, as per Marxism, not vice versa. In your scheme, a socialist state arises out of the superstructure somehow without even challenging the economic structure or relations of production. This is in direct opposition to how Marxism claims society works -- an inversion of the materialist method (this is of course a problem with Leninists in general, passed on from political generation to generation).

So no, SYRIZA is not revolutionary, barely radical, and not socialist.

[Per Levy]

someone should write a polemic called "left unity - an infantile disorder".


Syriza is revolutionary. Socially and Economically. It will make Greece a secular and a socialist state. Most members here tend to believe that SYRIZA is reformist,but this is not the point.
Making the banks public, higher taxes for rich people, free electricity and water and it goes on... isn't that radical?

that isnt radical that is just plain old reformism, any true social democrat would be pleased.

[BIXX]

You're not even leftist. Please don't comment. You're not an anarchist, not a marxist.. You're just an anticapitalist. Anarcho-fascists are anticapitalist too you know. I dont appreciate your opinion (with all the respect :) )
Lol there are no anarcho-fascists.

I think this was directed at me seeing as I'm not a socialist or an anarchist or any of that. I suspect though that you really don't know much about what I have to say and are just judging it based off of the words that have been used to describe me.

[Црвена]

Isn't the fact that SYRIZA is participating in a bourgeois election enough to rob it of any credentials as a revolutionary party it may have had? By running for election SYRIZA are failing to adhere to a pretty simple and fundamental principle of radical socialism: the notion that it is impossible to abolish capitalism by taking control of a state that is specially designed to protect the interests of the capitalist class. That is, if they even want to abolish capitalism at all. Most of their policies seem social democratic: raising the minimum wage, providing more welfare and creating public sector jobs are all just going to harm a capitalist economy and won't actually benefit workers at all in the long term.

[Tim Cornelis]

No participation in elections is not enough to rob it of any credentials as a revolutionary party. The KKE participates in elections, but harbours no illusions of taking over the power over the state by such means. It should be criticised for the notion of commodity-monetary exchange in the first phase of communism and central planning instead.

[Црвена]

No participation in elections is not enough to rob it of any credentials as a revolutionary party. The KKE participates in elections, but harbours no illusions of taking over the power over the state by such means. It should be criticised for the notion of commodity-monetary exchange in the first phase of communism and central planning instead.

Why do they participate in elections then?

[Tim Cornelis]

Platform and propaganda, organising around the immediate interests/demands of the working class and then voting for those demands.

[FSL]

No participation in elections is not enough to rob it of any credentials as a revolutionary party. The KKE participates in elections, but harbours no illusions of taking over the power over the state by such means. It should be criticised for the notion of commodity-monetary exchange in the first phase of communism and central planning instead.

The only way to immediately stop commodity production is to socialize everything, including one person-operated businesses which is nothing but adventurism. Even if you did that you'd just push all these people to join the capitalists or at the very least make them disgruntled workers.
I can't see how there won't be a need for a non-socialist sector in the economy immediately following a revolution. I'd say the point here is to not have it expand and include larger bussinesses employing the labor of others.

And as long as a non-socialist sector exists there will be some production of goods as commodities.





Syriza is revolutionary. Socially and Economically. It will make Greece a secular and a socialist state. Most members here tend to believe that SYRIZA is reformist,but this is not the point.
Making the banks public, higher taxes for rich people, free electricity and water and it goes on... isn't that radical? Don't listen to members of KKE youth which criticise SYRIZA. Stupid Stalinists lol :P

Banks have been nationalized in many countries over the last few years as a relief measure and the same thing has happened in Greece.
What are these taxes for rich people? No number has been mentioned as far as I know. Maybe you have a better idea? Still, these higher taxes are probably at odds with syriza's intention of attracting more investments than the new democracy government could.

And lastly Syriza proposes a 16 euros per month subsidy to 300,000 people to cover some of their electricity's cost. Not free electricity and free water.
Which is probably worse than what the current government is doing, giving a 20% reduction in the bills of 600,000 people.

This is the sort of debate we can expect in capitalism. Who will be kind enough to give more spare change to all the working people who can barely support their families.

[Tim Cornelis]

The only way to immediately stop commodity production is to socialize everything, including one person-operated businesses which is nothing but adventurism. Even if you did that you'd just push all these people to join the capitalists or at the very least make them disgruntled workers.
I can't see how there won't be a need for a non-socialist sector in the economy immediately following a revolution. I'd say the point here is to not have it expand and include larger bussinesses employing the labor of others.

And as long as a non-socialist sector exists there will be some production of goods as commodities.

I'm not going to debate what you believe, I'm just going to make the assessment that what you believe is not socialism in the Marxist sense. You want to accommodate petty bourgeois class interests in your 'social' revolution to produce a particular form of capitalism. 'Socially' managed capital and commodity production with petty bourgeois sympathies is not socialism. What you propose is the perpetuation of privately executed labour in reciprocal independence, and therefore commodity production, you freely admit so much. But as we know (I hope) this is consistent with the categories of capitalist production (the capitalist mode of production). It's inconsistent to style yourself a communist and Marxist if you advocate this. Unfortunately, many horrible proposals are advocated under the banner of Marxism (market socialism, Lange model, Stalinism). The aim of the communists is the abolition of private property. Anything short of it is not communism. If we advocate the expropriation of private property we may push all the petty bourgeois away from socialist revolution. But if we propose the expropriation of private property of big business we may push them away as well -- why not integrate their class interests into socialist revolution as well?

[Geiseric]

Kudos to Trotsky4 for setting a new standard for new members on the forum! Seriously, keep it up.

[FSL]

I'm not going to debate what you believe, I'm just going to make the assessment that what you believe is not socialism in the Marxist sense. You want to accommodate petty bourgeois class interests in your 'social' revolution to produce a particular form of capitalism. 'Socially' managed capital and commodity production with petty bourgeois sympathies is not socialism. What you propose is the perpetuation of privately executed labour in reciprocal independence, and therefore commodity production, you freely admit so much. But as we know (I hope) this is consistent with the categories of capitalist production (the capitalist mode of production). It's inconsistent to style yourself a communist and Marxist if you advocate this. Unfortunately, many horrible proposals are advocated under the banner of Marxism (market socialism, Lange model, Stalinism). The aim of the communists is the abolition of private property. Anything short of it is not communism. If we advocate the expropriation of private property we may push all the petty bourgeois away from socialist revolution. But if we propose the expropriation of private property of big business we may push them away as well -- why not integrate their class interests into socialist revolution as well?

The self-employed are by definition people who work, capitalists are again by definition people who don't work. Therefore, while the former are useful in a society the latter aren't. Also they make up a very large part of the labor force in some countries (about 30% in Greece) so they aren't an ally one can spare.

Private property of course has to be abolished but if 99% of the economy operates on socialist principles, the remaining 1% isn't dangerous when it is understood as remnants of the old world soon to be done away with. And in any case, it's not feasible for socialist relations of production to arise immediately in those parts of capitalism that remained underdeveloped. We're talking about shops hidden in neighbourhood corners here. These will be replaced by the larger and more efficient socialist sector just like they would be replaced by more efficient capitalist companies. But there is no need to go on an all out war with these people, if anything the inevitable transition should be smoothed out.

[PhoenixAsh]

At what percentage do you draw the line?

[Tim Cornelis]

The self-employed are by definition people who work, capitalists are again by definition people who don't work. Therefore, while the former are useful in a society the latter aren't. Also they make up a very large part of the labor force in some countries (about 30% in Greece) so they aren't an ally one can spare.

So now you're redefining terms which have been established in Marxism to deny that your ideology, or at least the way you propose it, accommodates petty bourgeois class interests. The petty bourgeoisie has always been defined as those whom own means of production but still labour. Self-employed fall into two categories: those whom indeed own means of production and labour (petty bourgeoisie); and those labouring independently without owning means of production as a legal construction to enable flexibilisation (working class). What you propose, however, is to accommodate the petty bourgeoisie, straightforwardly. That you say that they (supposedly) are not an ally one can spare doesn't change that you advocate integrating their petty bourgeoisie class interests into a 'socialist' revolution, and therefore adopt an objectively counter-revolutionary political position, untenable from the perspective of Marxism.


Private property of course has to be abolished but if 99% of the economy operates on socialist principles, the remaining 1% isn't dangerous when it is understood as remnants of the old world soon to be done away with. And in any case, it's not feasible for socialist relations of production to arise immediately in those parts of capitalism that remained underdeveloped. We're talking about shops hidden in neighbourhood corners here. These will be replaced by the larger and more efficient socialist sector just like they would be replaced by more efficient capitalist companies. But there is no need to go on an all out war with these people, if anything the inevitable transition should be smoothed out.

Why not do away with it then? You seem to be backtracking, because a situation where 99% of the means of production are owned by society (which you presumably don't even advocate), and 1% by the petty bourgeoisie you apparently hold so dearly, then clearly they are not in a position of social power with the capacity to force a reversion back to capitalist society. Your position strikes me as incoherent at best.

[FSL]

So now you're redefining terms which have been established in Marxism to deny that your ideology, or at least the way you propose it, accommodates petty bourgeois class interests. The petty bourgeoisie has always been defined as those whom own means of production but still labour. Self-employed fall into two categories: those whom indeed own means of production and labour (petty bourgeoisie); and those labouring independently without owning means of production as a legal construction to enable flexibilisation (working class). What you propose, however, is to accommodate the petty bourgeoisie, straightforwardly. That you say that they (supposedly) are not an ally one can spare doesn't change that you advocate integrating their petty bourgeoisie class interests into a 'socialist' revolution, and therefore adopt an objectively counter-revolutionary political position, untenable from the perspective of Marxism.



Why not do away with it then? You seem to be backtracking, because a situation where 99% of the means of production are owned by society (which you presumably don't even advocate), and 1% by the petty bourgeoisie you apparently hold so dearly, then clearly they are not in a position of social power with the capacity to force a reversion back to capitalist society. Your position strikes me as incoherent at best.
You can't labor independently without owning any means of production. Labor is your interaction with things that then turn to other things with use value. You can't have labor in a vacuum. The people you're referring to are wage laborers even if legally they are something else.

The working class owns exactly 0% of the means of production and yet is the actor of revolutionary change. Do the math.

[flouPOWER]

I don't know against who this was directed, but it's ironically sectarian. A lot of what you say contradicts Marxism, so are you a Marxist?



A social revolution in the Marxist sense is characterised by the supersession of the social relations of production, from which, combined with some other features, comprises the economic base on which the superstructure arises. Social revolutions happen when the development of the material productive forces come into conflict with the current social relations of production. In capitalism, production has a social character but it is executed privately, meaning the social character of labour has to be expressed through commodity exchange. A socialist revolution would entail the replacement of wage-labour by associated labour, after which commodity production disappears entirely. SYRIZA doesn't advocate this at all. How then can there be a 'socialist' or even a 'workers' state' in the Marxist sense? Base precedes superstructure, as per Marxism, not vice versa. In your scheme, a socialist state arises out of the superstructure somehow without even challenging the economic structure or relations of production. This is in direct opposition to how Marxism claims society works -- an inversion of the materialist method (this is of course a problem with Leninists in general, passed on from political generation to generation).

So no, SYRIZA is not revolutionary, barely radical, and not socialist.
:confused: Could you further explain in simple english because english is not my first language. I do not believe I'm a marxist but a trotskyist. I believe in proletarian internationalism, abolition of property (and later state). I believe in the stage theory, socialism to communism. We should not intergrate the bourgeois interests in the revolution, I believe in a society with no classes. Please go easier on me, I'm just 14 years old, dont expect me to know everything and be a Marxist (Trotskyist) with such knowledge. (To Tim Kornelis)

[flouPOWER]

Kudos to Trotsky4 for setting a new standard for new members on the forum! Seriously, keep it up.

Are you being ironic :p? How did I set a new standard?

[flouPOWER]

Kudos to Trotsky4 for setting a new standard for new members on the forum! Seriously, keep it up.

I'm not a Reformist and neither do I believe SYRIZA will bring socialism, just a relief for the working class.The capitalism superstructure is more likely NOT to change and it is not SYRIZA's fault. SYRIZA is not the saviour. SYRIZA will not bring any (major) changes if there will be no revolution. I think that is obvious. When you participate in the bourgeois elections, it doesnt get any more revolutionary than that :P. I repeat, I'm not a reformist, and most of SYRIZA's youth if not all is Marxist,Marxist-Leninist or Trotskyist. I do not believe we should change the capitalism system but rather abolish it. I did not set a new standard in REVLEFT, I'm a proud Trotskyist, NOT a reformist Thank you, im sorry if I were misunderstood. I <3 Marx

[Tim Cornelis]

You can't labor independently without owning any means of production. Labor is your interaction with things that then turn to other things with use value. You can't have labor in a vacuum. The people you're referring to are wage laborers even if legally they are something else.

The working class owns exactly 0% of the means of production and yet is the actor of revolutionary change. Do the math.

I think it's ironic that you don't consider the working class in Greece sufficient in numbers and hence the need to integrate petty bourgeois class interests into "socialism" considering that you think Russia had a successful socialist revolution with a proletariat dwarfed by contemporary Greece's.


:confused: Could you further explain in simple english because english is not my first language. I do not believe I'm a marxist but a trotskyist. I believe in proletarian internationalism, abolition of property (and later state). I believe in the stage theory, socialism to communism. We should not intergrate the bourgeois interests in the revolution, I believe in a society with no classes. Please go easier on me, I'm just 14 years old, dont expect me to know everything and be a Marxist (Trotskyist) with such knowledge. (To Tim Kornelis)

Social relations of production are the relations people have between them which determines how production is organised. In capitalism, this is wage-labour. People sell their labour-power (the capacity to labour) to an employer. So the relations of production of capitalism (wage-labour) is basically employer-employee; in feudalism this was serf-lord; in ancient times this was slave-master. According to Marxism these relations are crucial. So a change in the relations of production in capitalism toward associated labour is what sets the social revolution in motion, not in the 'superstructure'. The superstructure (e.g. law, art, state form) arises from the economic base (the economic base is social relations, methods of distribution -- how the economy works).

[TheEmancipator]

The jury is still out on Syriza.
The KKE have never been in a position of power either, but they uphold Marxist-Leninism USSR-style socialism which set back Marxism 100 years and empirically failed.

Nobody here is in a position to judge how revolutionary these parties are though. Only their rhetoric counts. Its up to them to fulfil the election pledges they have promised to the Greek working and middle classes.

It should be noted that somebody has already pointed out there have been many cases of a myriad of Socialist or Communist Parties running for election. What he didn't realise when he posted the link to the Portuguese election was that a whole bunch of communist parties failed to meet the threshold. It would be a shame if different voices of the left would not be heard due to a bourgeois-inspired electoral system. The same thing happened in France in 02, which gave FN a platform it simply didn't have until then.

The modern left simply lack any kind of machiavellian thought process. They are too busy insisting on remain orthodox to their version of religious fanaticism. No wonder parties like Podemos which have a bit of humility and know-how, as well as employing Gramscist ideas, are more successful than relics of the Cold War like IU and the KKE.

[PhoenixAsh]

I disagree that only their rhetoric counts.

KKE has participated in bourgeois governments; endorsed such governments; aided the police during protests, riots and events; argued against revolutionizing and escalation of protests; Participated (previous forms) in assasinations of revolutionary opponents; endorsed Golden Dawn speakers and aid at an important strike; engages in continuous criticism and slander attacks against other revolutionary parties as much as they do capitalism and the Greek government; etc. etc.

Of course SYRIZA is only marginally better but probably only because they lack the history.

[PhoenixAsh]

I disagree that only their rhetoric counts.

KKE has participated in bourgeois governments; endorsed such governments; aided the police during protests, riots and events; argued against revolutionizing and escalation of protests; Participated (previous forms) in assasinations of revolutionary opponents; endorsed Golden Dawn speakers and aid at an important strike; engages in continuous criticism and slander attacks against other revolutionary parties as much as they do capitalism and the Greek government; etc. etc.

Of course SYRIZA is only marginally better but probably only because they lack the history.

[Tim Cornelis]

I disagree that only their rhetoric counts.

KKE has participated in bourgeois governments

As far as I know, a bourgeois government (1980-81 iirc), and they have since re-evaluated this and have adopted the much more tenable position of essentially refusing any government participation, including a left workers' government with SYRIZA and ANTARSYA.

I'd say the KKE is (more than marginally) better than SYRIZA (on paper). At least they call for uncompromising workers' control over production in the entire economy. SYRIZA calls for nationalisation of some big businesses without workers' control.

As for the XA/DA speaker, that was more of an 'oopsy'. Incompetence more than malice.


The jury is still out on Syriza.

What, what jury would that be?

>Tendency: Titoism

Ah, makes sense.


The KKE have never been in a position of power either, but they uphold Marxist-Leninism USSR-style socialism which set back Marxism 100 years and empirically failed.

Says the Titoist. A bit facetious I guess, but in all seriousness a Titoist is in no position to lament Stalinoid Stalinism for not being Marxist enough. Titoism is equally ridiculous from a Marxist perspective -- both would have markets and commodity production in the first phase of communism! Titoism is Stalinism with competitive markets.

[TheEmancipator]

What, what jury would that be?

>Tendency: Titoism

Ah, makes sense.



Says the Titoist. A bit facetious I guess, but in all seriousness a Titoist is in no position to lament Stalinoid Stalinism for not being Marxist enough. Titoism is equally ridiculous from a Marxist perspective -- both would have markets and commodity production in the first phase of communism! Titoism is Stalinism with competitive markets.

Titoism gives the working classes the freedom of choice through artificial markets, which remain empirically the most efficient way to allocate resources and tend to needs of working class citizens. To fulfil needs you need both resources and choices. Market Socialism provides both.

Saying that a Titoist is in no position to lament Stalinoid Stalinism is an argument that was already settled when working class Yugoslav living standards went up in the 70s while the USSR stagnated spectacularly. Its widely accepted that the Yugoslav economic model was a success even though its state failed due to corruption, bureaucratisation and western-backed nationalism.

I do not not wish to enter a tendency war though, or worse a twisting of historical facts. I do not blindly follow Tito, and in fact I adhere more to people like Kardelj and Djilas than Tito. But I don't see why me being an admirer of Tito has anything to do with Syriza, unless you are referring to the events that happened during the Greek Civil War, which is the origin of the split between the delusional KKE that effectively gave up their country because Stalin said so, and the rest of the Greek Revolutionary Left

[FSL]

I think it's ironic that you don't consider the working class in Greece sufficient in numbers and hence the need to integrate petty bourgeois class interests into "socialism" considering that you think Russia had a successful socialist revolution with a proletariat dwarfed by contemporary Greece's.
Russia also took into account the class make up of the society. It's why there were kolkhozes. If there weren't, the result would be something like China in its left-wing communism days or Cambodia.
Even making the kolkhoz required a great deal of class struggle against the upper sections of the rural bourgeoisie and an effort to keep the rest to the workers' side.

[FSL]

The modern left simply lack any kind of machiavellian thought process. They are too busy insisting on remain orthodox to their version of religious fanaticism. No wonder parties like Podemos which have a bit of humility and know-how, as well as employing Gramscist ideas, are more successful than relics of the Cold War like IU and the KKE.
Yes, the better, fairer, free society will be the result of machiavelian PR specialists tricking the people into voting them.

Get out of here.




Of course SYRIZA is only marginally better but probably only because they lack the history.
"Anarchist"

[PhoenixAsh]

"Anarchist"

Yes exactly.

I don't trust your duplicitous KKE which has again and again proven to work against revolution and cooperating with the government and their institutions like the cops...until they are themselves the elitist leaders of their new authoritarian state-capitalist venture after having stifled and crushed all actual revolutionaries.

In other words...I think neither the KKE and SYRIZA are friends of the working class or serve working class interests. And in comparing the two...I think SYRIZA actually has some small and insignificant chance of forming a platform that is actually worthwhile...while I think the KKE is broken beyond repair.

[PhoenixAsh]

"Anarchist"

Yes exactly.

I don't trust your duplicitous KKE which has again and again proven to work against revolution and cooperating with the government and their institutions like the cops...until they are themselves the elitist leaders of their new authoritarian state-capitalist venture after having stifled and crushed all actual revolutionaries.

In other words...I think neither the KKE and SYRIZA are friends of the working class or serve working class interests. And in comparing the two...I think SYRIZA actually has some small and insignificant chance of forming a platform that is actually in remotest sense worthwhile...while I think the KKE is broken beyond repair.

[Rudolf]

Titoism gives the working classes the freedom of choice through artificial markets, which remain empirically the most efficient way to allocate resources and tend to needs of working class citizens.

I find this really funny because it's pretty much the same argument apologists for capitalism make, you know efficiency and markets providing freedom of choice and all this like somehow a choice between useful things can only exist when we abstract away from an object's usefulness when we put it into relation with another. As we know the 'efficient' allocation of resources through exchange is efficient only from a particular perspective, a fundamentally bourgeois perspective. What is to be efficient is the appropriation by private individuals of social power as opposed to maximising and generalising the production and consumption of useful things.


As for the OP i found it funny how it's an appeal against sectarianism by basically ignoring any fundamental political differences. Im not gonna join some party and contest elections it's fundamentally at odds with my politics.

Why is it that all calls for left unity are all calls for people to follow a specific tendency that in all probability is social democracy?

[BIXX]

Why is it that all calls for left unity are all calls for people to follow a specific tendency that in all probability is social democracy?

So much this.

I feel its also a more common practice for authoritarian (stalinists generally, but seem a few trotskyists do it too) leftists.

[Tim Cornelis]

Titoism gives the working classes the freedom of choice through artificial markets, which remain empirically the most efficient way to allocate resources and tend to needs of working class citizens. To fulfil needs you need both resources and choices. Market Socialism provides both.

Saying that a Titoist is in no position to lament Stalinoid Stalinism is an argument that was already settled when working class Yugoslav living standards went up in the 70s while the USSR stagnated spectacularly. Its widely accepted that the Yugoslav economic model was a success even though its state failed due to corruption, bureaucratisation and western-backed nationalism.

I do not not wish to enter a tendency war though, or worse a twisting of historical facts. I do not blindly follow Tito, and in fact I adhere more to people like Kardelj and Djilas than Tito. But I don't see why me being an admirer of Tito has anything to do with Syriza, unless you are referring to the events that happened during the Greek Civil War, which is the origin of the split between the delusional KKE that effectively gave up their country because Stalin said so, and the rest of the Greek Revolutionary Left

The living standards of the working class in the Netherlands increased even more, therefore the Netherlands has better socialism. Is there any pretence of Marxism in your Titoism? And there's nothing artificial about the markets in market socialism.

[TheEmancipator]

The living standards of the working class in the Netherlands increased even more, therefore the Netherlands has better socialism.

Yugoslavia was claiming to be a socialist state, as was the USSR. The Netherlands wasn't.



Is there any pretence of Marxism in your Titoism?

The fact that the bourgeois class gradually ceases to exist due to the means of production being controlled through workers' councils. Workers would elect their CEOs, decide on the direction of the cooperative, ensure that it remained a productive, effecient enterprise, sometimes even voluntarily deciding to take a paycut for the good of the company.



And there's nothing artificial about the markets in market socialism.Debatable. Certainly Titoist Yugoslavia was on the international stage very liberal (believed in things like division of labour - hence why Yugoslav workers were exported to both sides of the Iron Curtain). I believe the side effects of globalisation have shown that this wouldn't be the best course of action.

Internally the state still had a fairly strong grip on what could go on within the different coorporations. The Black Market remained a problem though.


Anyway, I fail to see the relevance. I'm not sure what disgusts you so much abour Market Socialism. I've already stated on this board numerous times that I do not consider Marx's work to be scripture. Fundamentally, I believe in the overthrow of the bourgeois class, first through the workplace, and if that fails then through political means.

[BIXX]

Yugoslavia was claiming to be a socialist state, as was the USSR. The Netherlands wasn't.




The fact that the bourgeois class gradually ceases to exist due to the means of production being controlled through workers' councils. Workers would elect their CEOs, decide on the direction of the cooperative, ensure that it remained a productive, effecient enterprise, sometimes even voluntarily deciding to take a paycut for the good of the company.


Debatable. Certainly Titoist Yugoslavia was on the international stage very liberal (believed in things like division of labour - hence why Yugoslav workers were exported to both sides of the Iron Curtain). I believe the side effects of globalisation have shown that this wouldn't be the best course of action.

Internally the state still had a fairly strong grip on what could go on within the different coorporations. The Black Market remained a problem though.


Anyway, I fail to see the relevance. I'm not sure what disgusts you so much abour Market Socialism. I've already stated on this board numerous times that I do not consider Marx's work to be scripture. Fundamentally, I believe in the overthrow of the bourgeois class, first through the workplace, and if that fails then through political means.

Guessing you meant to finish this post with "the state".

If they have wages, its not socialism. Case closed.

Who gives a fuck about whether the Netherlands claimed to be socialist or not? Many places have claimed to be socialist but haven't been. (China, Cuba, USSR, etc...)

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

The fact that the bourgeois class gradually ceases to exist due to the means of production being controlled through workers' councils. Workers would elect their CEOs, decide on the direction of the cooperative, ensure that it remained a productive, effecient enterprise, sometimes even voluntarily deciding to take a paycut for the good of the company.

The fact that you can write this and then turn around and go "ey lads look at what a great system market socialism is" boggles the mind.

If you think workers taking pay cuts in the name of the productivity and efficiency of "their" enterprise is a good thing, then you're obviously not a socialist of any kind.

Used to be that gradualists were restricted too. Ah, what a great time we all had back then.

[TheEmancipator]

Guessing you meant to finish this post with "the state".

If they have wages, its not socialism. Case closed.

Who gives a fuck about whether the Netherlands claimed to be socialist or not? Many places have claimed to be socialist but haven't been. (China, Cuba, USSR, etc...)

Wage labour would have been eradicated once there would be a surplus of production.


The fact that you can write this and then turn around and go "ey lads look at what a great system market socialism is" boggles the mind.

If you think workers taking pay cuts in the name of the productivity and efficiency of "their" enterprise is a good thing, then you're obviously not a socialist of any kind.

Used to be that gradualists were restricted too. Ah, what a great time we all had back then.


The nature of currency within the Yugoslav model was very different. Basically you could decide whether your company should invest in more capital or in more wage labour, knowing full well that it would not harm your living standards if you took a small pay cut in order to invest in capital for the necessity of expanding production possibility frontiers. I'm not saying it was cocaine and caviar in ex-Yugoslavia but workers had the power to decide how to manage production.

Its condescending people who say that workers cannot manage themselves that ought to also question their beliefs. Workers aren't pawns in some kind of game. I think for you workers are some kind of quasi-mythical entity that only don't think the way you do because they are stupid, not because they are brought up in a different way, yet follow their own personal interests the same way you would, etc..

It brings us back to Syriza, as their rhetoric is very workerist and in some ways populist, claiming the Greek Worker can do no wrong. I mean, the working classes of Greece need to take as much responsibility for failing to solve the crisis (created by a failure of capitalism rather than capitalism itself). If they think that by voting in Syriza all their troubles will go away and they can go back to working 5 hour days, tax evasion, corruption within both unions and employers etc. They are very wrong.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I mean, the working classes of Greece need to take as much responsibility for failing to solve the crisis (created by a failure of capitalism rather than capitalism itself). If they think that by voting in Syriza all their troubles will go away and they can go back to working 5 hour days, tax evasion, corruption within both unions and employers etc. They are very wrong.

Please stop posting. Seriously. This is below the level of Huffington Post.

I'm also aware of how the Yugoslav model worked, and it had nothing to do with this fantasy of yours. For starters, if you think the workers had a free vote, you're in for a rude awakening.

[TheEmancipator]

Please stop posting. Seriously. This is below the level of Huffington Post.

Incredible. What i am saying has nothing to do with the demonisation of the working classes by bourgeois press sources. What I am saying is that Greek working classes consistently voted for nationalists, paternalists and social democrats yet you see fit to bash the parties that offer an alternative to the degenerate corporatist states like Greece. Then when I agree with you that Syriza is not the only solution and that action must be taken across all levels of society you compare me with the Huffington post.


I'm also aware of how the Yugoslav model worked, and it had nothing to do with this fantasy of yours. For starters, if you think the workers had a free vote, you're in for a rude awakening.Depends on where in ex-Yugoslavia.

You can bash other tendencies all you want from the pedestal of Trotskyism. I already told you I am not entering a historical mud-slinging when the subject is about

[Tim Cornelis]

Yugoslavia was claiming to be a socialist state, as was the USSR. The Netherlands wasn't.

The fact that the bourgeois class gradually ceases to exist due to the means of production being controlled through workers' councils. Workers would elect their CEOs, decide on the direction of the cooperative, ensure that it remained a productive, effecient enterprise, sometimes even voluntarily deciding to take a paycut for the good of the company.

Debatable. Certainly Titoist Yugoslavia was on the international stage very liberal (believed in things like division of labour - hence why Yugoslav workers were exported to both sides of the Iron Curtain). I believe the side effects of globalisation have shown that this wouldn't be the best course of action.

Internally the state still had a fairly strong grip on what could go on within the different coorporations. The Black Market remained a problem though.

Anyway, I fail to see the relevance. I'm not sure what disgusts you so much abour Market Socialism. I've already stated on this board numerous times that I do not consider Marx's work to be scripture. Fundamentally, I believe in the overthrow of the bourgeois class, first through the workplace, and if that fails then through political means.

I'll probably be unable to convince you that your politics are as terrible as they are, so I'm just going to comment on them. You come from a point of seeking the most suitable ways to manage capital and facilitate capital accumulation, and want to use Titoism to this end. This produces an odd cocktail of vaguely socialist rhetoric with openly capitalist policy advocating: economic growth, exporting workers to be employed, accommodating globalisation of capital markets, asking the working class to aid the capitalist class in austerity, etc. Terrible politics really.

Your paradigm is fundamentally bourgeois and what you propose is as shabby as Proudhonism. You don't think Marx's work are scripture, neither do I, I'm inquiring about whether you uphold the Marxist method of social analysis, not whether you agree with Marx on everything. These are distinct matters. But more so than not agreeing with Marx, you clearly disagree with the method he devised. All good and well but I don't understand why you feel the need to identify with Marxism in any way. Schweikardt has sympathetic views on Yugoslavia but doesn't consider himself Titoist. You apparently reduce Marxism to the overthrow of the capitalist class, but there's nothing uniquely Marxist about this. And, more importantly, you propose to make everyone capitalists, to paraphrase Marx.

As for Yugoslavia, 'workers' self-management' was a joke because votes by the workers could be blocked by party bureaucrats and managers.

I don't see why the heavy hand of the state in a market makes it 'artificial'. A market involves the exchange of commodities, and this existed in the USSR and Yugoslavia. Nothing 'artificial' about Yugoslavia's market. And artificial market would be mimicking market mechanisms without the involvement of actual exchange of commodities, as Takis Fotopolous proposes.

What disgusts me about market socialism is that it's a form of capitalism, and therefore produces the social ills associated with and tied to capitalism. Inputs and outputs are commodities, therefore generalised commodity production exists. Enterprises confront each other on the market, therefore competition of capitals exists. etc. etc. And therefore market socialism will have terrible income inequality and poverty, (a hypothetical Nintendo cooperative would earn one million US dollars a year for every of its workers, while poor peasant cooperative members in Burundi would remain poor peasant cooperative members), crime, war, nationalism, unemployment, imperialism, etc.

The Netherlands doesn't claim to be socialist, but Sri Lanka and Portugal do.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Incredible. What i am saying has nothing to do with the demonisation of the working classes by bourgeois press sources. What I am saying is that Greek working classes consistently voted for nationalists, paternalists and social democrats yet you see fit to bash the parties that offer an alternative to the degenerate corporatist states like Greece. Then when I agree with you that Syriza is not the only solution and that action must be taken across all levels of society you compare me with the Huffington post.

You seem to be fundamentally confused.

Socialists don't care if Greece is a "degenerate corporatist state". Socialists aren't trying to find ways to save Greek capitalism or raise the Greek GDP. Socialists want socialism, not a "better" capitalism (better for who? for the bourgeoisie and for the petite bourgeoisie). We criticise SYRIZA because it is a popular front between bourgeois and reformist elements, not because it opposes (on paper) austerity measures.

You're obviously trying to find a way to save Greek capitalism, and force the Greek workers to pay out of their own pockets in order to save "the economy", meaning the Greek bourgeoisie. And your rhetoric is the same as the rhetoric of any pro-austerity liberal party.

As such you have no business calling yourself a socialist.

Of course, you apparently think it's enough for a state to call itself socialist and institute some co-determination scheme. In which case I have just the regime for you: the Italian Social Republic.

[TheEmancipator]

Look, I will not discuss Market Socialism in a thread about mending the secterian divide in Greece. There are no market socialist parties in Greece and very few in Europe. Both of you have confused market socialism with social democracy, when it is more similar to council communism and Proudhonism. I imagine you motives are more tendencialist than actually anti-Titoist. So all you have done is shown how tendency wars such as the one in Greece come about.

Tim Cornelis, I am not ignoring your post here, I take on board many of your pointsm and wish to read more about Schweikardt (post some links perhaps) but I fundementally disagree when you say that Market Socialism is a form of capitalism when it does not encourage capital accumulation and provides limits to the the accumulation of capital within its doctrine.

Now, back to Greece and 870's post...


Socialists don't care if Greece is a "degenerate corporatist state". Socialists aren't trying to find ways to save Greek capitalism or raise the Greek GDP. Socialists want socialism, not a "better" capitalism (better for who? for the bourgeoisie and for the petite bourgeoisie).These arguments are futile when it comes to satisfying your debtors. THe fact remains Greece has indebted itself and the resolution to its indebtment provides Syriza a platform to work on restructuring Greek society away from international bourgeois elements.

There is no pragmatism or concrete solutions to current Greek problems in your argument. You think the Greek people should just rise up, chop a few heads off and declare a socialist state when you know full well it is not going to happen like that. Socialist parties, who wish to build a socialist society, regardless of tendencies, should earn the trust of the Greek working classes through the task of reducing the Greek debt and re-establishing popular sovereignty in Greece, while removing reactionary elements such as the Orthodox Church, Golden Dawn and blatent neptosim and paternalism from Greek public life. Then we can talk about entering the next stage of a revolutionary process.


We criticise SYRIZA because it is a popular front between bourgeois and reformist elements, not because it opposes (on paper) austerity measures.So you firmly believe that movements such as Syriza, Podemos, etc are populated by bourgeois activists, while your organisation is only filled with working class people?


You're obviously trying to find a way to save Greek capitalism, and force the Greek workers to pay out of their own pockets in order to save "the economy", meaning the Greek bourgeoisie. And your rhetoric is the same as the rhetoric of any pro-austerity liberal party.You are obviously trying to downgrade working class conditions in Greece even further when they are already struggling for medecines, education, basic employment etc... Syriza guarentees this in their manifesto as basic human rights yet you would rather watch what you call "Greek capitalism" sink and watch hundreds of thousands of Greeks forced into poverty. I'm sure the Greek working classes will thank you by voting for Golden Dawn.


Of course, you apparently think it's enough for a state to call itself socialist and institute some co-determination scheme. In which case I have just the regime for you: the Italian Social Republic. That's not what I said. I was comparing Yugoslavia's living standards with other (degenerate) Socialist states, not capitalist countries like the netherlands where the working classes were bought off with reformist social programs on borrowed money.

If we are discussing Yugoslavia, then my argument is very simple: If I was a facotry worker in the 70s, would I rather live in the USA, Yugoslavia or the USSR? I think many factors point towards Yugoslavia. However we are no longer in the 1970s and the nature of international class structure and capital has changed. I just think that the Market Socialist model has remained the most empirically successful compared to other socialist models to date. Has Trotskyism ever even been tried? By all means, prove me wrong by plunging hundreds of Greeks and Souther Europeans into extreme poverty with your apparent nonchalance towards international finance. :rolleyes:

[PhoenixAsh]

Sorry. ...are you arguing that the proletariat should concern themselves with debts created by the bourgeois and should pay for them?

Fuck international finance...Greece defaults then the whole European economy will suffer. Good for them. Sucks for the rest. I hope they abandon the EU while they are at it.

[TheEmancipator]

Sorry. ...are you arguing that the proletariat should concern themselves with debts created by the bourgeois and should pay for them?

Fuck international finance...Greece defaults then the whole European economy will suffer. Good for them. Sucks for the rest. I hope they abandon the EU while they are at it.


If you think the collapse of international finance will only harm the bourgois classes you are severely mistaken. If anything it allows them to take an even firmer grip over capital that would have previously belonged to working middle class individuals who bought houses on mortgages. Have you read The Merchant of Venice?

Again, you wish to plunge the working classes into total poverty rather than the overblown ''hell'' they make out their lives to be in Northern European countries. I think you'll soon find hte main benefactor will be the far right as people tend to not support people who openly encourage the destruction of their assets.

The Greek bourgeoisie should pay for their debts. That's exactly what Syriza plans to do : tax capital over wage labour, satisfy hte international creditors then loosten their grip on Greek politics and society so that Syriza can push forwards with plans for restructuring Greek society.

[contracycle]

I have a question.

Trotsky4 opened the thread by asking, and I paraphrase, whether it was more important to stick on different doctrinal approaches, or to act in concert (even if this might imply, cynically or opportunistically). And it seems to me that the tenor of the thread has been to answer: the doctrinal differences are more important, because that has been almost the entirety of what has been discussed.

My question is: do we even know, really, what we are talking about here? It's been nearly a century since the RussRev, and most of that period was dominated by the Cold War as a framework. But that influence has dropped away, we have whole a generation for whom the CW is just stuff that happens in movies. Things are volatile in a way they haven't been in any of our lives; and of course, technology has moved a long way since 1917, and I doubt any of us can predict how a self-activated working class would put it to use.

While I'm not going to go so far as to advocate reformism, can we not recognise this uncertainty and give even the reformists the benefit of the doubt rather than accusing them of wanting to eat babies from spits?

Seems to me, even if Greece were to have a full blown, proper revolution, that implemented a genuine socialism, it's pretty unlikely that Greece has enough clout to export this to the rest of Europe, let alone the world. The likely best case is that it serves as an inspiration that flames the embers lying dormant everywhere else. This could happen; but, should we really demand an all or nothing approach, either absolute commitment or supine defeatism? Because it seems to me it could go the other way, it could be the Fascist flame that gets fanned.

Reading TheEmancipators posts, whatever I may or may not agree with about their positions, it is hard for me to disagree that the Greeks are having a 'what is to be done' moment. And this is neither an abstract nor selfless sentiment; right now the British conservatives are proposing to reduce public spending to levels not seen since the 1930's. The neoliberal agenda is so powerful, so overwhelming right now, so unchallenged, that even a reformist reaction in Greece would provide one hell of a rebuttal. It would open up space for a conversation that hasn't been going on in the public debate for a century.

Should we not back the Greek left en bloc, let them test themselves and their ideas in the crucible of action, and learn from their experiences? Can we not disinter the old slogan of unqualified but critical support and offer them our blessings, rather than our curses? Because it seems to me that at this point, unless some of you can convincingly argue that doing so would let the Fascists in, there is little to be lost, either in Greece, or in Europe, or the world.

[TheEmancipator]

contracycle, you have misunderstood our friends here : they genuinely believe Syriza members are playing for the same side as the venture capitalists in Wall Street. For them Syriza is a bourgeois party with bourgeois interests and whether you vote Syriza or ND you will get a bourgeois government at the service of the global bourgeoisie.

This must be why bourgeois politicians such as Merkel, the openly neo-liberal Comission and the bully boys in Wall Street are all bricking it at the thought of a Syriza victory. :rolleyes:

[PhoenixAsh]

If you think the collapse of international finance will only harm the bourgois classes you are severely mistaken. If anything it allows them to take an even firmer grip over capital that would have previously belonged to working middle class individuals who bought houses on mortgages. Have you read The Merchant of Venice?

Again, you wish to plunge the working classes into total poverty rather than the overblown ''hell'' they make out their lives to be in Northern European countries. I think you'll soon find hte main benefactor will be the far right as people tend to not support people who openly encourage the destruction of their assets.

The Greek bourgeoisie should pay for their debts. That's exactly what Syriza plans to do : tax capital over wage labour, satisfy hte international creditors then loosten their grip on Greek politics and society so that Syriza can push forwards with plans for restructuring Greek society.

O I am not under any illusion that any revolution would not heavilly impact the so called welfare of the proletariat because it will lead instantly to a global financial collapse. Nor that the mere collapse of international finance would not do the very same.

What you wish to do is extend the exploitation of the proletariat because you are afaraid of deconstructing capitalism. So instead you want an indefinate capitalist transition phase in which Greece will still be heavilly incorporated in the international financial markets.,..because that is what the fucking austerity measures and all the debt it about: keeping Greece within that very same system so it won't collapse internationally.

The idea that SYRIZA will bring about a non-capitalist society is pittifull, idiotic and the fantasies of a very dilluded mind. SYRIZA at most will craete a capitalist society outside of the EU. Which will fail for the very same reasons you mention here...but ultimately SYRIZA will simply cave. They are nothing but a shill.

[Philosophos]

I disagree that only their rhetoric counts.

KKE has participated in bourgeois governments; endorsed such governments; aided the police during protests, riots and events; argued against revolutionizing and escalation of protests; Participated (previous forms) in assasinations of revolutionary opponents; endorsed Golden Dawn speakers and aid at an important strike; engages in continuous criticism and slander attacks against other revolutionary parties as much as they do capitalism and the Greek government; etc. etc.


I know that KKE has participated in bourgeois governments, but they said that it was a huge mistake and also have put a lot of thought in it. The same goes for lots of the Stalin's policies even after his death etc, so it's pretty much like saying that they have an improved form of soviet-style program.
On the other hand I haven't heard that they argued against protests or that they have endorsed GD members. They criticise other revolutionary parties because they think that they are not revolutionary or that they will make huge mistakes with their programs and will only hurt communism instead of helping.

Could you give an example about the claims that you made about the GD and protest part, I'm really interested.

[Philosophos]

To the OP, I believe that SYRIZA is not revolutionary because of all the things it says. I've spoke with a couple of it's members from different parties and they all have different opinions on many basic subjects that are crucial for the working class. There are many parties inside SYRIZA that flirt with social democracy and PASOK would also be jealous of their ideas.
Plus there many members of PASOK that joined them the last few years, I don't know if that says something, but for Greece it says a lot with all the high-jacking politicians going from one party to another purely for opportunistic reasons.

At the same time I want to believe that SYRIZA will at least make some changes and maybe relief the working class from many problems that has right now. I hope that it will create the basis for a stronger working movement in the future, but I still have lots of questions about the way they choose to do it. I'm still not sure if I will go to vote for them or if I will just vote KKE or not even go to vote (I'm greek btw in case you wonder). I want to believe in these politicians that I've talked with, but the general picture I get from the whole party is kinda messed up.

SYRIZA right now is not a revolutionary party ( at least now) and the left unity that it has tried is almost certain to fail if it keeps going the way it goes right now. So all in all left unity in this moment of my life is off the table. Maybe I will change my view in the near or distant future... I mean lately I can't even decide what I want to eat :)

[Sasha]

this is obviously the most recent and most infamous incident of KKE/police cooperation; http://www.revleft.com/vb/kke-assisting-police-t163031/index.html, http://www.revleft.com/vb/kkes-actions-october-t163088/index.html but there where previously also incidents where the especially the youth of the KKE handed over anarchists to the police etc.

the GD incident was this; http://www.revleft.com/vb/kke-embraces-nazi-t168152/index.html
i dont think the local KKE didnt know what they where do doing, i do believe though that its was not sanctioned by the the CC, but in a centralized party this happening says a lot about the priorities and focus of the leadership

[Sasha]

something else, obviously they are not leftists in any shape or form but can any of the greeks here tell us anything about the new party of Papandreou, the movement of democratic socialists. (http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2015/01/greece-george-papandreou-new-party-2015146210586284.html) do they stand at any chance of stealing enough old PASOK votes back from SYRIZA or do people see through the obvious scheme?

[Philosophos]

something else, obviously they are not leftists in any shape or form but can any of the greeks here tell us anything about the new party of Papandreou, the movement of democratic socialists. (http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2015/01/greece-george-papandreou-new-party-2015146210586284.html) do they stand at any chance of stealing enough old PASOK votes back from SYRIZA or do people see through the obvious scheme?

It's pretty sad, but people and also young people tend to believe that he will bring the change and they will vote this fucker. He criticises his previous decisions and he spreads that this system can't support democracy etc etc. It's almost certain that he will get lots of votes from the PASOK voters that went to different parties like SYRIZA after the break down of PASOK itself.

I seriously don't understand how people fall for this bullshit (unless we've been mislead by the media that he will get lots of votes). Either the propaganda level in Greece is over 9000 or there something really wrong going on with us and we should have stayed in feudal times instead of capitalism.

[Philosophos]

By the way i just read the links you posted and I can't actually fucking believe that PAME did these things... What the actual fuck :confused:

[FSL]

I have a question.

Trotsky4 opened the thread by asking, and I paraphrase, whether it was more important to stick on different doctrinal approaches, or to act in concert (even if this might imply, cynically or opportunistically). And it seems to me that the tenor of the thread has been to answer: the doctrinal differences are more important, because that has been almost the entirety of what has been discussed.

My question is: do we even know, really, what we are talking about here? It's been nearly a century since the RussRev, and most of that period was dominated by the Cold War as a framework. But that influence has dropped away, we have whole a generation for whom the CW is just stuff that happens in movies. Things are volatile in a way they haven't been in any of our lives; and of course, technology has moved a long way since 1917, and I doubt any of us can predict how a self-activated working class would put it to use.

While I'm not going to go so far as to advocate reformism, can we not recognise this uncertainty and give even the reformists the benefit of the doubt rather than accusing them of wanting to eat babies from spits?

Seems to me, even if Greece were to have a full blown, proper revolution, that implemented a genuine socialism, it's pretty unlikely that Greece has enough clout to export this to the rest of Europe, let alone the world. The likely best case is that it serves as an inspiration that flames the embers lying dormant everywhere else. This could happen; but, should we really demand an all or nothing approach, either absolute commitment or supine defeatism? Because it seems to me it could go the other way, it could be the Fascist flame that gets fanned.

Reading TheEmancipators posts, whatever I may or may not agree with about their positions, it is hard for me to disagree that the Greeks are having a 'what is to be done' moment. And this is neither an abstract nor selfless sentiment; right now the British conservatives are proposing to reduce public spending to levels not seen since the 1930's. The neoliberal agenda is so powerful, so overwhelming right now, so unchallenged, that even a reformist reaction in Greece would provide one hell of a rebuttal. It would open up space for a conversation that hasn't been going on in the public debate for a century.

Should we not back the Greek left en bloc, let them test themselves and their ideas in the crucible of action, and learn from their experiences? Can we not disinter the old slogan of unqualified but critical support and offer them our blessings, rather than our curses? Because it seems to me that at this point, unless some of you can convincingly argue that doing so would let the Fascists in, there is little to be lost, either in Greece, or in Europe, or the world.

It's not a "doctrinal difference" to want capitalism. Is that hard to grasp?
You're not even advocating reformism, you're advocating keynesianism at best. If you think workers prosper and capitalists suffer under a keynesianist management, you're wrong and you just don't understand how capitalism works.
The state, the bourgeois state, a tool in the hands of the capitalists, gets the revenue and then allocates it to its favoured section of the capitalist class. Both the Republicans and the Democrats have ran deficits, with the former proping up oil companies and the defence industry and the latter subsidizing insurance companies, renewable energy companies etc. No one gives money to the workers, at least not more than enough to keep them alive and somewhat calm. That's what keynesianism is and I don't understand how making that the norm will positively impact the lives of the workers.


Syriza's programme couldn't even qualify as keynesianism since they want to maintain a balanced budget.
And you're saying that communists should be supporting that. Communists. Supporting balanced budgets of a bourgeois state during a major capitalist crisis.
This has nothing to do with "techonology advancing" or anything. In Germany during the years of the great depression the SPD used to say that "capitalism is ill and we must cure it". This is the exact same thing. People who think that is the way to go obviously stop having anything to do with working class emancipation, let's call a spade a spade.

[FSL]

this is obviously the most recent and most infamous incident of KKE/police cooperation; http://www.revleft.com/vb/kke-assisting-police-t163031/index.html, http://www.revleft.com/vb/kkes-actions-october-t163088/index.html but there where previously also incidents where the especially the youth of the KKE handed over anarchists to the police etc.

the GD incident was this; http://www.revleft.com/vb/kke-embraces-nazi-t168152/index.html
i dont think the local KKE didnt know what they where do doing, i do believe though that its was not sanctioned by the the CC, but in a centralized party this happening says a lot about the priorities and focus of the leadership
That's not "the local KKE" but a union of factory workers, only one of whom was a party member. People from Syriza went there too. It can't be run like a section of the party. If it was, you'd probably disagree with that too, no?

Handing over anarchists to the police is a myth, what is not a myth is that when these "anarchists" (a very good example is phoenixash here) tried to murder protesters, they got what was coming to them.
Of course there is nothing to regret there since these people are anything but comrades.

[Sasha]

Handing over anarchists to the police is a myth, w

ehm, in a 1998 demo from Polytechnic the KNE (KKE youth) and MAT (riotpolice) beat and arrested so much anarchist youth in a coordinated effort (over a hundred) that your youth party is still being called the KNAT to this day.

and claiming that PAME is not 100% KKE front is just plain disingenuous.

[VivalaCuarta]

Sectarianism is not the problem in Greece. Reformism -- social-democratic, Stalinist and anarchist -- is the problem. Greece needs more "sectarianism."

[FSL]

ehm, in a 1998 demo from Polytechnic the KNE (KKE youth) and MAT (riotpolice) beat and arrested so much anarchist youth in a coordinated effort (over a hundred) that your youth party is still being called the KNAT to this day.

and claiming that PAME is not 100% KKE front is just plain disingenuous.

See how I know you don't know what you're talking about? That "nickname" is even older.
I'm not going to play the unity card here because I don't want to or feel the need to. Our "anarchists" -though I wouldn't think anarchists elsewhere are as a rule much better, I could really recognize them in "For whom the bell tolls" for example and that is about civil war era Spain- are quite despicable and I guesstimate that at least 90% of them will be voting for syriza (so our capitalism might once again be more peaceful with them left alone with their beers in their squats). In every case that communists and anarchists exchanged words (or more), I'm sure there was a perfectly good reason for it. But the "coordinated efforts" is a myth, like it or not.

Claiming that unions are "party fronts" shows you also know little of unions.

[PhoenixAsh]

I was there in 1998....I could recognize Class traitors in the KKE even then and they have done very little to correct that image since then. But it wasn't just Anarchists...it was the Trotskyists as well, the Left-Com's and the Sparts...basically everydbody else who doesn't accept the KKE as their leaders.

And it says enough about you that you are so willing to step over that extremely shamefull behaviour without blinking. But since you have defended trhe KKE collaboration with the cops consistently on this site...yeah...it is only to be expected

There is no substantial difference between SYRIZA and the KKE...with that respect that the KKE has a long, long history of violence against other revolutionaries and direct collaboration with the capitalist system and their tools....and SYRIZA so far...not so much.

KKE are the fifth collum within the proletarian class. The thin veneer of the capitalists to keep order.

[FSL]

I was there in 1998....I could recognize Class traitors in the KKE even then and they have done very little to correct that image since then. But it wasn't just Anarchists...it was the Trotskyists as well, the Left-Com's and the Sparts...basically everydbody else who doesn't accept the KKE as their leaders.

And it says enough about you that you are so willing to step over that extremely shamefull behaviour without blinking. But since you have defended trhe KKE collaboration with the cops consistently on this site...yeah...it is only to be expected

There is no substantial difference between SYRIZA and the KKE...with that respect that the KKE has a long, long history of violence against other revolutionaries and direct collaboration with the capitalist system and their tools....and SYRIZA so far...not so much.

KKE are the fifth collum within the proletarian class. The thin veneer of the capitalists to keep order.

I don't think it's shameful, in fact I think it's mandatory to fight back against class enemies and the useful idiots that do their bidding. For example you, a supposed anarchist, who dares to say about Syriza, a blatantly bourgeois party, that they "don't have a history of collaboration with the capitalist system"! When they are part of it and proudly so, when they claim they are better managers of capitalism than traditional christian-democrats and when they argue so to investors and fund managers in London.

Now if you or people like you attacked me, verbally and physically as "anarchists" have done, should I have any doubt as to whether I should strike back? Why, because we're "comrades"? We are not, it's that simple.

[PhoenixAsh]

I don't think it's shameful, in fact I think it's mandatory to fight back against class enemies and the useful idiots that do their bidding. For example you, a supposed anarchist, who dares to say about Syriza, a blatantly bourgeois party, that they "don't have a history of collaboration with the capitalist system"! When they are part of it and proudly so, when they claim they are better managers of capitalism than traditional christian-democrats and when they argue so to investors and fund managers in London.

Now if you or people like you attacked me, verbally and physically as "anarchists" have done, should I have any doubt as to whether I should strike back? Why, because we're "comrades"? We are not, it's that simple.

I know you do not think it is shamefull to betray the working class I have come to expect exactly that attitude of you after years of you defending the class traitors of the KKE.

As a friendly reminder before you defile this site with your insidious lies and asinine attempts to try to white wash what your precious KKE is: a cancer in the revolutionary movement that needs to be rooted out....

it was the KNAT that surrounded the Anarchists demo. It was the KNAT who handed us over to the cops and who cooperated with the MAT doing the capitalists dirty work... like you slime of the earth have always done. It was the KNAT that attacked us within Trotskyist lines.

Do not try to play the innocent victim here...your precious KKE and its predecessors are nothing but a capitalist shill trying to mislead the working class and handing them over to the bourgeois and you have defended that slime over and over again. Like you have defended and tried to weasel your way out of the KKE accepting GD support and aid.

You are right...you are most definately not my comrade...we have never been, you just took a little longer to realize that. You and your ilk do not belong in the revolutionary left and are just as much class enemies as the GD.

[FSL]

Glad we've reached an agreement, long live Kronstadt etc etc


Of course unlike you, I have arguments on why you're politics are rotten to the core. For example, you saying stuff like this:

The only thing I agree with in the whole narrative is that the SP is currently the only party diametrically opposed to austerity. Perhaps the SP is not doing what other parties couldn't do but other parties aren't doing it and the SP is.

There is no more radical leftwing alternative...at least...not one which is active or known outside a very small selective group of those who are really active. People have no clue we still have a communist party for example.

So instead of waiting for a revolution that never comes...the SP is the best alternative besides handing the entire state over to the liberal scum of the VVD and D66 http://www.revleft.com/vb/best-munincipal-election-t187685/index.html?t=187685

So you're an "anarchist" in name only who in practice can't wait to get behind any center-left party that promises better days. Much like the anarchists we have here or I'd dare to say much like anarchism in general.

So this is the reason why we are not and cannot be comrades. Not that you are a "revolutionary" and I oppose you.

[FSL]

The words of an anarchist caring deeply about the fate of the revolutionary left:


So creating a revolutionary movement in a society that has historically been compartmentalized through the bone....it is going to take some time.

But we are faced with heavy austerity measures...right now...right here...at this moment. Food banks which had been absent for decades have been reintroduced and social security, healthcare, unemployment benefits, elderly care and childcare have been reduced to near poverty line.

The ONLY party currently fighting these austerity measures and fighting to protect labour rights and the huge subsidies for companies and trying to implement some form of wage equality is the SP.

With the revolutionary scene all but scattered and fragmented...I hardly think you can compare the Dutch situation with a completely different situation 90+ years ago.

This isn't pessimism. This is reality.

This is not some theoretical exercise but the complete bankruptcy of the revolutionary movement in the Netherlands.

The revolutionary movement is bankrupt, let's support social-democrats instead!
And while we're at it, let's keep up the attacks on the actual communists, it might make us seem edgier!

[PhoenixAsh]

Glad we've reached an agreement, long live Kronstadt etc etc


Of course unlike you, I have arguments on why you're politics are rotten to the core. For example, you saying stuff like this:
http://www.revleft.com/vb/best-munincipal-election-t187685/index.html?t=187685

So you're an "anarchist" in name only who in practice can't wait to get behind any center-left party that promises better days. Much like the anarchists we have here or I'd dare to say much like anarchism in general.

So this is the reason why we are not and cannot be comrades. Not that you are a "revolutionary" and I oppose you.

Ow. I see you are a grade-A student of the KKE propaganda offices in trying to quote out of context.

But pointing at me, however straw manned it is, does nothing at all to alleviate the fact that you specifically defended the KKE cooperating with the bourgeois system; repeatedly defended the KKE handing over anarchists and other revolutionaries to the cops; defended specifically your KKE goons beating up a woman unprovoked and breaking bones in her face; you defending the KKE allowing high ranking GD members in a strike zone and allowing to hand them supplies; you defended the KKE defending parliament; you defended the KKE predecessor assassinations of Trotskyists, Left-coms and Anarchists; you defended the participation of the KKE in parliament...and basically every other betrayal of the working class the KKE has been involved in in its long history of class treason.

But sure...me arguing that in the Dutch parliamentary landscape a move towards the SP rather than the usual centrist neo-liberal parties in absence of a revolutionary party is positive...is naturally way, way worse.

See...you really do not have a leg to stand on and the fact that you can't bring up one single viable defense rather than the tired old rhetoric we are used from the KKE politburo of "provocators in masks" or you quoting old threads, out of context, illustrates this extremely well. Finger pointing is not really something that diminishes your own culpa.


:laugh:

[FSL]

Ow. I see you are a grade-A student of the KKE propaganda offices in trying to quote out of context.

You provide a whole bunch of context, don't worry.

It is obvious that someone who supports center-left parties would want to slander communists. Soc-dems have been doing so for years. You can say what you want and other soc-dems can nod in agreement.
It doesn't concern the revolutionary movement though because you are not a part of it. And that isn't "sectarianism" as this thread is suggesting, it's class politics.

[PhoenixAsh]

You provide a whole bunch of context, don't worry.

It is obvious that someone who supports center-left parties would want to slander communists. Soc-dems have been doing so for years. You can say what you want and other soc-dems can nod in agreement.
It doesn't concern the revolutionary movement though because you are not a part of it. And that isn't "sectarianism" as this thread is suggesting, it's class politics.

I did and I know what I wrote so I also know you are trying your usual tactic of slander and straw manning. But this is all besides the point because you still haven't provided any viable answer to your defense of supporting MAT and the bourgeois government.

Now...we coould spend time talking about the thread you quote and you getting your ass beaten in yet another argument over how wrong you are and what a lying hypocrite you are. But I much rather use this thread in order to get you to explain your above mentioned positions and your position of defending austerity and your argument that the Greeks needed to remain in the EU; in the Euro zone and well within the reach of the Troika....while at the same time attacking SYRIZA over that very same position. This not only smells of opportunistic hypocracy...but is the actual definition of opportunistic hypocracy.

You also keep mentioning the word communists as if this word has any relevance on the KKE beside them adopting some of the symbolism or, on you....because it is quite obvious that for you communism means cooperating with the bourgeois; violently defending their institutions and protecting their rule...and handing actual revolutionaries over to the MAT.

Now...be a good little filthy class traitor and actually take some responsibility...

[FSL]

we coould spend time talking about the thread you quote and you getting your ass beaten in yet another argument over how wrong you are and what a lying hypocrite you are
Yeah, sure.



But I much rather use this thread in order to get you to explain your above mentioned positions and your position of defending austerity and your argument that the Greeks needed to remain in the EU; in the Euro zone and well within the reach of the Troika.
That's it then, you went 100% crazy.

[PhoenixAsh]

To jolt your memory...that was when you were defending the KKE forming and orderly line around the parliament and turning on the working class. I am sure it is all fuzzy for you because there are soooo many times when the KKE turns on the working class...but this one was when you were actually defending parliament against being stormed where you made the argument that you were teen-fanning "OMG the military" and "OMG we are so much better in the Euro and EU than when we get out of that" and quoted links of the KKE position where they basically argued the same.

Now...are you telling us that you:
1). Disagreed with the position of the class traitors of the KKE?
2). Did not defend that very same position?
3). You don't really remember because you sold out on revolution and the working class so often that it is hard to keep up?

[FSL]

you made the argument that you were teen-fanning "OMG the military" and "OMG we are so much better in the Euro and EU than when we get out of that" and quoted links of the KKE position where they basically argued the same
You are a joke.

I'm sure you can find both my quotes where I argue in favor of the EU and those links with the KKE quotes arguing the same. Have fun looking.

[PhoenixAsh]

I note again there is no argument from you against anything I said about you.

There were three threads on the subject. These are not hard to find. I don't feel any particular need to facilitate you.

[contracycle]

It's not a "doctrinal difference" to want capitalism. Is that hard to grasp?
You're not even advocating reformism, you're advocating keynesianism at best.

Actually, what I'm advocating is engagement with class struggle.

I really don;t understand what you wouyld hope to achieve by not doing so. Should communist groups not participate in struggles for a 40-hour week, for a living wage, in anti-racism?

None of these lead to revolution in themselves; all of them can be dismissed as reformist, as saving capitalism from itself. And yet all of them are, also, real struggles, learning experiences for both communist groups and politically active proletarians, all of them advance independent proletarian organisation and class consciousness.

Additionally, revolutions tend to occur when concessions are being won. It demonstrates that the grip of the ruling class is not as strong as it might appear. There is a huge difference between adopting a reformist platform, and engaging in struggle alongside the class even if for reformist goals.

And if you don't, what do you gain? Are you going to sit on your hands waiting until the stars are right, that the movement is big enough and strong that it can overthrow capitalism? Because by then, it will have developed its own structure, by necessity. And should you want to talk to them about your ideas, by how far this can go, will they not turn around and ask you where you've been all this time? Will they not ask why they should listen to you, who's done nothing but carp and moan from the sidelines?

There is plenty to be gained by engaging, and nothing by failing to, IMO.

[FSL]

Actually, what I'm advocating is engagement with class struggle.

I really don't understand what you wouyld hope to achieve by not doing so. Should communist groups not participate in struggles for a 40-hour week, for a living wage, in anti-racism?

That's a strawman, no one argues against doing these things. Except maybe the modern left parties who abstain from anything having to do with class struggle and union work.

Where's the syriza or podemos or die linke led militant movement demanding these things? Nowhere because they are not interested in making one, in fact they would hate it if that happened. This is the difference between class struggle that forces concessions and petty reforms initiated by friends of the people.
You're not breaking any new ground. These things have all been said by Jaures, Millerand, Kautsky and a million other socialist ministers. You can read Luxembourg's Reform or Revolution or a number of things by Lenin.

[Tim Cornelis]

'Communists'. Pray tell how anyone who believes that generalised commodity production is compatible with 'communism' can qualify for that label. The KKE is not a communist party, it's a bourgeois-socialist or democratic socialist party.

[FSL]

'Communists'. Pray tell how anyone who believes that generalised commodity production is compatible with 'communism' can qualify for that label. The KKE is not a communist party, it's a bourgeois-socialist or democratic socialist party.

The term communist originates in the 3rd international and the 21 conditions set by the bolsheviks to join it and is not yours to redefine as you please. During the first steps of the russian revolution, Lenin describes 5 forms of property evident in their economy.


Whatever standards you want to set remain imaginery. Communism is materialist, not an abtract concept where we're forced to transition immediately to the ideal.
You're basically the leftist version of all those people who don't want the transition to a worker's state and a socialist economy to ever happen at all.
Which is probably why you have little trouble working closely with the center-left parties of this world iirc.

[contracycle]

You're not breaking any new ground. These things have all been said by Jaures, Millerand, Kautsky and a million other socialist ministers. You can read Luxembourg's Reform or Revolution or a number of things by Lenin.

Yes, I know I'm not breaking new ground, which is precisely why I'm somewhat surprised to have to be making this argument at all.

I've explained why I think this is necessary; capital is rapidly becoming more and more overtly ruthless, and seems hell bent on making the C21st look more like the 19th than the 20th. At this point "petty reforms" are well worth winning. And if friends of the people are visibly left as the only ones making the effort, their credibility climbs and the hard left's falls.

[Tim Cornelis]

The term communist originates in the 3rd international and the 21 conditions set by the bolsheviks to join it and is not yours to redefine as you please. During the first steps of the russian revolution, Lenin describes 5 forms of property evident in their economy.

Excuse me? The term 'communist' originates in the Third International? Did the word 'communists' or 'communism' time travel to 1848 into the ''Communist Manifesto'' then?


Whatever standards you want to set remain imaginery. Communism is materialist, not an abtract concept where we're forced to transition immediately to the ideal.
You're basically the leftist version of all those people who don't want the transition to a worker's state and a socialist economy to ever happen at all.
Which is probably why you have little trouble working closely with the center-left parties of this world iirc.

This is incredibly ironic. And why I am accused of being an ultraleftist and centre-leftist at the same time? Your incoherence conforms to the incoherence of Stalinist ideology.

Indeed, communism is materialistic, and not an abstract ideal to which society has to adjust itself, but yet this is exactly what Stalinists do.

Communism is fundamentally at odds with its bastard child Stalinism, and we argue that Marx's vision is the essentially correct fashion of defining communism. That is, “Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence.” The Stalinist proposes a system that amounts to nothing more than the state monopolisation of the management of capital, or state-capitalism. They propose to bring generalised wage-labour and generalised commodity production, that is, the basis of capitalism, under state ownership. This system lacks an internal dialectical process that would carry it to communism on its own. The development of communism is then contingent on the will of the leadership to implement reforms that would transform state-capitalism into its opposite. And inversely, the leadership of a socialist government can will socialism in and out of existence, apparently through mere subtle reforms, as the anti-revisionists purport. Communism, to the Stalinist, inadvertently, independent from the Stalinist's pronounced convictions or will, becomes merely an idea to which society has to adjust itself, an idea, moreover, that appears to be placed permanently beyond the horizon. Stalinism is eternally condemned to govern capital, and the ideological dynamics of Stalinism are tied to this peculiar type of capital management; it is locked within this framework, reproducing the logic of capitalism under the veil of communism. For this reason, Stalinism, and its various derivatives, cannot accurately be regarded as communist if we choose to define it in materialist terms. Thus, communisms that have developed as theoretical (or ideological) expressions of the movement of and toward communism, and communisms that correspond, in its theory, to the real development of history, can be qualified as communist. The theoretical framework consistent with communism as the real development of history (Bordiga). Those self-styled communisms that do not, are bourgeois-socialist.

According to Marxism, something I am annoyingly compelled to continually emphasise owing to an utmost ignorance of Marxism among liberals and Stalinists alike, commodity production results from social labour being executed in reciprocal independence, or 'private labour'. The social character of labour is only established through the exchange of commodities. In communism, first, medium, or a higher phase, commodity production simply does not arise because the social character of labour is expressed immediately under associated labour. In the words of Engels, "From the moment when society enters into possession of the means of production and uses them in direct association for production, the labour of each individual, however varied its specifically useful character may be, becomes at the start and directly social labour." Thus, "The concept of value is the most general and therefore the most comprehensive expression of the economic conditions of commodity production. Consequently, this concept contains the germ, not only of money, but also of all the more developed forms of the production and exchange of commodities. The fact that value is the expression of the social labour contained in the privately produced products itself creates the possibility of a difference arising between this social labour and the private labour contained in these same products." (Anti-Dühring).

In other words, communism, even the first phase, is necessarily a society without value-form, without commodity production. To deny this is to argue that the social relationships of production are still wage-labour and not directly or freely associated labour, and therefore there can be no 'socialism' in the Marxist sense. Or alternatively, it means that Marxist theory is incorrect in identifying the social relationships of production as shaping the material categories of the economy, which means an abandonment of Marxism. Either way, Stalinism contradicts Marxism and cannot claim to be 'Marxist-'Leninism.

No one is arguing that this will be established instantaneously but commodity production will immediately disappear once social ownership is established. This is not a question of transition as you fabricated from thin air. What you, and all other Stalinists propose, is the establishment of a system of generalised wage-labour and commodity production under the banner of communism -- completely and utterly contrary to Marxist theory. Thus, what you advocate is simply capitalism by any rudimentary Marxist standard. And since capitalism cannot mechanically transform itself into communism, communism, in the Stalinist ideology, becomes merely an abstract idea to which society has to adjust itself: utopian. And it parallels Dühring's socialism and Proudhonism in some crucial ways in fact.

[FSL]

Excuse me? The term 'communist' originates in the Third International? Did the word 'communists' or 'communism' time travel to 1848 into the ''Communist Manifesto'' then?

The term "communist party of something" and what this means and by extension what communism means. As if you didn't get what I meant.





Yes, I know I'm not breaking new ground, which is precisely why I'm somewhat surprised to have to be making this argument at all.

I've explained why I think this is necessary; capital is rapidly becoming more and more overtly ruthless, and seems hell bent on making the C21st look more like the 19th than the 20th. At this point "petty reforms" are well worth winning. And if friends of the people are visibly left as the only ones making the effort, their credibility climbs and the hard left's falls.
You're surprised you need to repeat the arguments of class traitors who when they went on to govern, they murdered communists and workers and became the capitalists' best servants?
According to you, we should all be taking their words as gospel?
I'm more surprised that we need to go through the same nonsense again, as if people are allergic to history. You know, the second time as a farce.

Capital is becoming more ruthless by default because it's concentrated in fewer hands that grow stronger and more predatory. This is the nature of capitalism, to reach the imperialist stage and be dominated by monopolies.This isn't some thing that can be reversed or done away with, it's the basic law of the system. What you're saying is an argument in favour of doing away with capital, not "trying to tame it". If you think capital can be tamed and become humane, you just don't understand what capitalism is.

[FSL]

This is incredibly ironic. And why I am accused of being an ultraleftist and centre-leftist at the same time? Your incoherence conforms to the incoherence of Stalinist ideology.
All deviations are the result of petty bourgeois influence.

You're making communism impossible by setting ridiculous standards and others are saying communism is impossible because the standards set are ridiculous.
Left-wing and right wing opportunists then meet in some center-left party demo protesting "austerity" or something. Good job.

[PhoenixAsh]

Why is FSL still here defending capitalism and cooperation & collaboration with bourgeois institutions

[contracycle]

According to you, we should all be taking their words as gospel?


I haven't suggested taking anyone's anything as gospel.



I'm more surprised that we need to go through the same nonsense again, as if people are allergic to history. You know, the second time as a farce.[

'sfunny, I was thinking that very thing.



Capital is becoming more ruthless by default because it's concentrated in fewer hands that grow stronger and more predatory. This is the nature of capitalism, to reach the imperialist stage and be dominated by monopolies.This isn't some thing that can be reversed or done away with, it's the basic law of the system. What you're saying is an argument in favour of doing away with capital, not "trying to tame it". If you think capital can be tamed and become humane, you just don't understand what capitalism is.

Thank you Captain Patronizing. You are quite wrong to suggest I'm proposing to tame capitalism; I'm pointing out that if you're not going to fight, you're encouraging the class to ignore you, and they'd be right to do so. You don't even have to think these fights are winnable, but you do have to show up. And that absence can also create an opening for Fascists to offer their own interpretation and organisation.

You seem to imply that capitalism cannot be resisted, that no victories can be wrung from it however minor, that there is nothing to do but wait for the utter immiseration of the working class.

[FSL]

I haven't suggested taking anyone's anything as gospel.

[

'sfunny, I was thinking that very thing.



Thank you Captain Patronizing. You are quite wrong to suggest I'm proposing to tame capitalism; I'm pointing out that if you're not going to fight, you're encouraging the class to ignore you, and they'd be right to do so. You don't even have to think these fights are winnable, but you do have to show up. And that absence can also create an opening for Fascists to offer their own interpretation and organisation.

You seem to imply that capitalism cannot be resisted, that no victories can be wrung from it however minor, that there is nothing to do but wait for the utter immiseration of the working class.

You suggested that there was no need to argue in favour of what Kautsky (way before Iglesia and Tsipras) proposed. Well, there is considering he was a butcher of workers and pet of the capitalists.

Once again, show me what Podemos or Syriza or Die Linke or the Left Front consider "fighting". Show me. Am I asking too much?
Because what I do know is that the Left Front or whatever their name is in France voted for Hollande in the 2nd round, Die Linke governs with the SPD and the Greens whenever it gets the chance, Syriza is praising Obama and Brazil's government (who just now announced -guess what!- austerity measures) etc And not one of these parties is organizing at the very least its supporters, applying pressure on the state and the government. The only fights they have are in talk shows. What good has the meteoric rise of Podemos and Syriza done to the movement in Spain and Greece?

These parties don't talk about fighting, no reformist has talked about fighting and they aren't even that. Reformism is the end of fighting and the start of "discussing, negotiating, exchanging views, compromising".
So enough with your strawmen. These parties give nothing when it comes to fighting and organizing the working class to be a class for itself. They are presidents-to-be and act like that, nothing more.

And yes, I'm not expecting any president or prime minister of a capitalist state to win my fights. Now you can choose to ignore the centuries of experience and just go be a good voter for whichever Messiah you prefer.


I'm just saying that this has nothing to do with the revolutionary movement.

[FSL]

that absence can also create an opening for Fascists to offer their own interpretation and organisation

Fascists "show up" because they are capitalism's soul.
They'll keep showing up as long as capitalism exists.
You want capitalism? You want fascists.

You want to try to make capitalism better and more humane through a sensitive, leftist government that of course ends up "failing"?
You set up the way for the fascists, no one else.

[TheEmancipator]

Fascists "show up" because they are capitalism's soul.
They'll keep showing up as long as capitalism exists.
You want capitalism? You want fascists.

You want to try to make capitalism better and more humane through a sensitive, leftist government that of course ends up "failing"?
You set up the way for the fascists, no one else.

I call hyperbole.

Fear, uncertainty, lack of narrative or direction in life, discrimination. All linked to material conditions. That is why fascism is popular within lumpenproleteriat circles these days. This particular product is a product of the globalised world, for sure, but you FSL as a good member of the KKE are part of the capitalist furniture, I'm afraid. Your rhetoric and political grandstading does nothing to help those in desperate need in Greece.

The only role the KKE plays in Greece is to be an oppositionary lapdog with a strong lead to its bourgeois masters. It can bark as loud as it wants but I wouldn't be surprised if it had been infiltrated by bourgeois interests, hence its collaboration with the police.

You can accuse somebody of being responsible for the rise of fascism, I personally think we are all in some way responsible. But the KKE has set Greek Communism back 10-20 years so is in no position to lecture others on being responsible for fascism in Greece.

[FSL]

I call hyperbole.

Fear, uncertainty, lack of narrative or direction in life, discrimination. All linked to material conditions.
And the material conditions are linked to capitalism, which you people support and hope -in vain- to improve and correct.

So when the modern left in France helps in Hollande's election and Hollande proves to be a joke (because it's the capitalists that have the real power, not "reformists"), don't be surprised to see Lepen gaining ground.
When Pasok was elected in 2009 on an anti-austerity platform only to stumble upon a great capitalist crisis and forget all of its "promises", don't be surprised to see people mindlessly yelling against "lying politicians" and turning to fascism.

There is not an equal amount of guilt for everyone. You are responsible for your actions and your actions so far are to support any bourgeois who claims he can save us and capitalists at the same time. So when that goes down the drain, we are not all to blame. You are.

[contracycle]

Once again, show me what Podemos or Syriza or Die Linke or the Left Front consider "fighting". Show me. Am I asking too much?

I believe you previously criticised the argument that the intent was to make the bourgoisie pay for the crisis, on the grounds that this was only arguing for "healthier capitalism". Now you're proposing to sit on the sidelines while the working class, inspired by a sense of injustice, attempts to act in its own defence. What good can possibly come of this?



These parties don't talk about fighting, no reformist has talked about fighting and they aren't even that. Reformism is the end of fighting and the start of "discussing, negotiating, exchanging views, compromising".


You're confusing two things. I have not argued that capitalism can be reformed to the point that socialism is achieved without revolution. I'm not talking about Reformism per se at all. I'm only talking about pulling your weight in the actually existing class struggle, not sitting piously off on the sidelines denouncing any effort to diminish the ferocity of neoliberalism as irrelevant.



I'm just saying that this has nothing to do with the revolutionary movement.

Quite so. And you are quite wrong.

[contracycle]

You want to try to make capitalism better and more humane through a sensitive, leftist government that of course ends up "failing"?
You set up the way for the fascists, no one else.

This is complete and utter cobblers. The working class learns it's own power, develops its own institutions, sharpens its criticisms of capitalism, through the actual process of class struggle. You're proposing that the revolutionary left should stay out of this process, should not engage with the class, should not perform it's function of offering an analysis, a tradition, or a methodology.

You don't seem to understand the significance of your own argument. It is precisely because the core of Fascism is latent but omnipresent in capitalism that WITHOUT a counter-point analysis, without an argument to internationalism, solidarity and anti-racism, the direction of that actual class struggle can easily spin off in directions that give Fascism precisely what it's looking for. And that only get's compounded if the Fascists are actually in the thick of it, earning credibility through action, which the so-called "revolutionary" Left is sitting off to the side sucking it's thumb and declaring that nothing short of real revolution is worth getting out of bed for.

I think you've completely lost the plot. If the hard left does not engage with the class, and back it on bread and butter issues, it will have neither the influence nor credibility to make the case for revolution. It won't even get a hearing.

[PhoenixAsh]

Once again, show me what Podemos or Syriza or Die Linke or the Left Front consider "fighting". Show me.


I believe you previously criticised the argument that the intent was to make the bourgoisie pay for the crisis, on the grounds that this was only arguing for "healthier capitalism". Now you're proposing to sit on the sidelines while the working class, inspired by a sense of injustice, attempts to act in its own defence. What good can possibly come of this?

Contracycle....

you are arguing with somebody who wholeheartedly and unreservedly supports the KKE....a party which considers cooperation with the cops, beating up revolutionaries and handing them over to the bourgeois as "fighting".

At best he is too blind to see that the KKE is on the wrong side of class warfare and is actually opposing exactly that which revolutionaries aim for. And that is the best case scenario.

[contracycle]

I am entirely uninterested in discussing this matter in such terms. I don't know everyone's specific affiliation, and in all honesty I don't really care. If he is on the wrong side, then his argument will make that apparent on its own.

[PhoenixAsh]

I am entirely uninterested in discussing this matter in such terms. I don't know everyone's specific affiliation, and in all honesty I don't really care. If he is on the wrong side, then his argument will make that apparent on its own.

How incredibly naive of you. But since you apparently don't really care if somebody justifies cooperation with MAT and handing over revolutionaries to the state...which he did in this very thread and consistently in the past...suit yourself.

[contracycle]

Perhaps, but there it is. I'm going to expect you to actually make an argument, not read off a bibliography.

[PhoenixAsh]

Perhaps, but there it is. I'm going to expect you to actually make an argument, not read off a bibliography.

You do realize that entire sentence does not make any shred of sense do you? Reading of a bibliography? Per chance you mean summarizing the users arguments made over the course of lengthy debates in a three year span...right?

Or in other words... "then his argument will make that apparent on its own" is exactly what I said it was based on the users statements in this very thread...and based on the users consistent arguments over the last three years.

So you trying to tell the user that his arguments is cobblers and suggesting that the revolutionary left should leave the class alone and do nothing....is EXACTLY what this user is wholeheartedly endorsing and supporting...is really pointless and an exercisse in futility.

but like I said...suit yourself...

I'll grab the popcorn.

[contracycle]

A bibliography, as in references to the full versions of arguments which appear in other texts, and are called upon to the make the argument here. I'm not going to let you or anyone tell me that you are right on the basis of a footnoted reference to a text I do not have before me.

Nor am I obsessive enough to wade through this place trying to read back years of discussion so as to figure out in which pigeon hole someone should be slotted. I will judge them and their positions by what I see them argue, and that is all.

[PhoenixAsh]

A bibliography, as in references to the full versions of arguments which appear in other texts, and are called upon to the make the argument here. I'm not going to let you or anyone tell me that you are right on the basis of a footnoted reference to a text I do not have before me.

Nor am I obsessive enough to wade through this place trying to read back years of discussion so as to figure out in which pigeon hole someone should be slotted. I will judge them and their positions by what I see them argue, and that is all.

Uhuh. Sure. How cute of you.

Because scrolling up is such a hassle :rolleyes: So you already demonstrated that that is a load of horse shit.

Now...Like I said. I warned you. You act like an asshole. So I will simply let you slam your head against the brick wall while watching your exercise in futility.

After a while you will realize three things...

1). The KKE is one of the least popular parties...seen as dishonest, parliamentary vote husslers who collaborate and co-depend on the continuation of the status-quo on this site
2). The KKE propaganda machine spews out slogans and denunciations of basically everybody revolutionary at an incredibly speed and whose actions will always...without fail...be aimed at the continuation and perpetuation of the status quo....especially if they can gain "seats" in the process
3). FSL will support everything unreservedly, uncritically, unequivocally that the KKE does including handing revolutionaries over to MAT and protecting the bourgeois institutions.

Now I tried to warn you. But you go have fun.

[FSL]

This is complete and utter cobblers. The working class learns it's own power, develops its own institutions, sharpens its criticisms of capitalism, through the actual process of class struggle. You're proposing that the revolutionary left should stay out of this process, should not engage with the class, should not perform it's function of offering an analysis, a tradition, or a methodology.

You don't seem to understand the significance of your own argument. It is precisely because the core of Fascism is latent but omnipresent in capitalism that WITHOUT a counter-point analysis, without an argument to internationalism, solidarity and anti-racism, the direction of that actual class struggle can easily spin off in directions that give Fascism precisely what it's looking for. And that only get's compounded if the Fascists are actually in the thick of it, earning credibility through action, which the so-called "revolutionary" Left is sitting off to the side sucking it's thumb and declaring that nothing short of real revolution is worth getting out of bed for.

I think you've completely lost the plot. If the hard left does not engage with the class, and back it on bread and butter issues, it will have neither the influence nor credibility to make the case for revolution. It won't even get a hearing.
So many words and no answer to the simple question:

Once again, show me what Podemos or Syriza or Die Linke or the Left Front consider "fighting". Show me. Am I asking too much?

All these parties, all of them, are abstaining from anything that can be remotely considered class struggle. They are abstaining from anything related to the working class organizing itself, emancipating itself, developing its own institutions etc. If I'm wrong, do tell me how. Tell me for example that when these parties collaborate with or seek to replace the traditional soc-dems they are actually "criticizing capitalism". And that when they abstain from any working class action, they are actually "advancing class struggle".
Talk to me about the militancy syriza or podemos brought to the greek and spanish working classes in the past year. Be as specific as possible because I'd love to hear all about it.


I've had enough of your strawmen. No one is saying that people shouldn't fight for their basic needs, only for the revolution. But these parties don't fight for anything and you are happy to call their electoral masturbation "class struggle" when it is anything but that.


And you are right, you are not a reformist who believes socialism can come through reforms. Right now you're not even that, you're at best a moderate keynesianist who doesn't give a rat's ass about socialism and is just anxious to vote some nice guy who will supposedly make our lives a little more bearable. And you call this begging class struggle!
But you are wrong to say that your failure to act against capitalism doesn't feed capitalism and doesn't feed fascism. It most certainly does.

[FSL]

The KKE propaganda machine spews out slogans and denunciations of basically everybody revolutionary at an incredibly speed
Just to be clear, are there any "revolutionaries" here that actually want a revolution and don't just support whichever "anti-austerity" party is more popular in their region?
Because I have no real interest in arguing with such people, I'm really sick of them.

[PhoenixAsh]

Just to be clear, are there any "revolutionaries" here that actually want a revolution and don't just support whichever "anti-austerity" party is more popular in their region?
Because I have no real interest in arguing with such people, I'm really sick of them.

Since you do not consider anybody but those who support the KKE to be revolutionary..then no. One or two perhaps. Most people here however would gladly chose an anti-austerity party over a party that advocates MAT collaboration, perpetuation of the staus quo while arguing to wave flags at anti-austerity measure rallies and vote KKE but doesn't really do anything besides having the GD openly address their strikes...and which usually executes and assassinates revolutionaries when it suits their purposes. In short you may pretend your party is revolutionary but we all know that it is the safety net of the capitalist class and has consistently proven to be so over the decades. The best investment the bourgeois made was the KKE and PAME they are more effective than GD in keeping the working class in check.

[contracycle]

I've had enough of your strawmen. No one is saying that people shouldn't fight for their basic needs, only for the revolution. But these parties don't fight for anything and you are happy to call their electoral masturbation "class struggle" when it is anything but that.

I think at this point that any resistance to austerity is worth pursuing. As I've said, unless you can make a cogent argument that doing so would let the Fascists in, I don't see what there is to be lost.

You have not made that case.



And you are right, you are not a reformist who believes socialism can come through reforms. Right now you're not even that, you're at best a moderate keynesianist who doesn't give a rat's ass about socialism and is just anxious to vote some nice guy who will supposedly make our lives a little more bearable. And you call this begging class struggle!


You know, if you were talking about some run-of-the-mill election in an essentially stable and peaceful political context, I would take much the same line. But austerity is killing people. If you think that "being alive" is the same as "a little more bearable", you're completely out of your mind.

And you know, I already addressed this point. What was the 40-hour week if not making life a bit more bearable? It certainly could be written off that way, but I don't think it's a full and accurate description.

I don't think that you will be forgiven for your passivity. Your position is both wrong in principle and bad strategy.

[FSL]

You know, if you were talking about some run-of-the-mill election in an essentially stable and peaceful political context, I would take much the same line. But austerity is killing people. If you think that "being alive" is the same as "a little more bearable", you're completely out of your mind.

What you're saying is trully remarkable. You'd support a revoluytionary party in peaceful times (!!!) but when a crisis actually hits the system, you switch your allegiance to whoever bourgeois promises to be kinder.

I think I have news for you, this means you've never actually supported revolution.

[contracycle]

Nonsense. I haven't "switched my allegiance"; I'm just participating, alongside the working class as a whole, in an act of self-defence.

You're arguing a moralist position, that workers should be made to suffer until they realise the error of their ways and embrace revolutionary politics. It's stupid, arrogant and worst of all, self-defeating.

[FSL]

Nonsense. I haven't "switched my allegiance"; I'm just participating, alongside the working class as a whole, in an act of self-defence.

You're arguing a moralist position, that workers should be made to suffer until they realise the error of their ways and embrace revolutionary politics. It's stupid, arrogant and worst of all, self-defeating.

Of course you haven't really switched your allegiance.
In peaceful times you're all for a revolution but when shit hits the fan , it's "self-defence" time? True allegiance is shown in a crisis, when things matter, not during times of peace. You're like all those socialists who were internationalists up until the World War began and they had to start voting for war credits. In an act of self-defence of course.
Your allegiance was always where it is today but the wording was remarkable for its hilarity.

And no, your position is that workers should be made to suffer because capitalism is exploitative and you don't even say a word about overthrowing it. Unless you've discovered a new type of capitalism, which I very much doubt, it is a given that workers will suffer if you get your way. And you want them to suffer without even any clear goal, other than some fake leftists getting a taste of power and bigger paychecks.

[contracycle]

Nothing you say is even remotely representative of what I have argued, so there is nothing more to be discussed. You will try your strategy of disengagement and contempt for workers, and I will try out mine of cooperation and assistance, and we will see which wins their confidence.

[FSL]

Nothing you say is even remotely representative of what I have argued, so there is nothing more to be discussed. You will try your strategy of disengagement and contempt for workers, and I will try out mine of cooperation and assistance, and we will see which wins their confidence.

No, we'll see which strategy frees them from exploitation and improves their lives.

[Zukunftsmusik]

Kudos to Trotsky4 for setting a new standard for new members on the forum! Seriously, keep it up.

Oh, Geiseric...

[Tim Cornelis]

All deviations are the result of petty bourgeois influence.

He said while defending the petty bourgeoisie in socialist revolution! I don't even think you believe what you're saying. It's empty phrasemongering. 'I'm not a Marxist' - Marx.

I'm making communism impossible by approaching it from consistent materialist standpoints, somehow, whereas you make communism attainable by redefining it to fit within capitalism. Technically, yes, that makes it more feasible I suppose, it also makes it more counter-revolutionary, coincidentally.

[Rafiq]

Uhuh. Sure. How cute of you.


What you don't understand is that no one should give a shit about the various pathologies behind posts. Posts ought to be confronted for what they are. This is a discussion forum, it is not an organization, it is not a street demonstration, it is a website solely intended for discussion. The fact of the matter is that we can explain why people adopt the positions we do and criticize them for it, but that does not mean we can be dismissive. You have made no argument as to why FSL supports the KKE and simply claimed "Well he does, end of story - let's move on". A form of truth-legitimization solely in the spirit of bourgeois crypto-positivism. Ruling ideas are legitimized precisely because they do not have to confront ours - ideas can be rendered illegitimate or legitimate not based on whether they are true, but based on their place in the hierarchy of legitimized truth. This is how the state-apparatus justifies itself.

The fervently anti-statist PheonixAsh, good for accusing people of "state apologia" and other such groundless platitudes, has demonstrated in a few sentences precisely how he emulates and reproduces the logic of the state. Communists, conversely, see individuals as rational beings accountable and responsible for their positions. That's why even during Stalinist purges stupid things like confessions were necessary, even if forced. How does it feel to be ideologically more statist than Stalinists, Phoenix? Things cannot be dismissed by merit of origin. Things can be explained, things can be articulated, things can be criticized or opposed - but not dismissed by merit of identity or origin. If you can't, for example, properly dismantle the justifications Fascists have for themselves, then deep down you are under the impression that your ideas and the ideas of fascists are equal but different - that theirs is just another "world-view" equally grounded in their subjective reality that you simply label and oppose to conform to your own. I think we can all see this blatant postmodernism for what it is.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

A good, balanced article from Jacobin

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/01/syriza-greece-election-tina/

In this way, the strategic and tactical failure that underlies the sectarian tendency to oppose Syriza for being reformist is that if Syriza loses — if the ideology of TINA wins out yet again — the Left in Greece (and Europe more generally) is finished for the foreseeable future.

[PhoenixAsh]

What you don't understand is that no one should give a shit about the various pathologies behind posts.

And yet you are the entire embodyment and personification of exactly that....


Posts ought to be confronted for what they are.

And some of them are horse shit fuelled party propaganda


This is a discussion forum, it is not an organization, it is not a street demonstration, it is a website solely intended for discussion.

Really? Because you don't seem to debate...you seem to orate against others.


The fact of the matter is that we can explain why people adopt the positions we do and criticize them for it, but that does not mean we can be dismissive.

O yes we very well can.



You have made no argument as to why FSL supports the KKE

Because I do not have to make these arguments. This is a fact. A fact which has been repeated over years. His reasons are his own. I merely state that he is...and that he is word for word parrotting party line KKE rhetoric as he has done for years.


and simply claimed "Well he does, end of story - let's move on". A form of truth-legitimization solely in the spirit of bourgeois crypto-positivism. Ruling ideas are legitimized precisely because they do not have to confront ours - ideas can be rendered illegitimate or legitimate not based on whether they are true, but based on their place in the hierarchy of legitimized truth. This is how the state-apparatus justifies itself.

hahahahahahaahahahahahah <---look being dismissive again becauce that argument is so completely ludicrous even you managed to find new lows to which to sink. Perposterous lingoism from Rafiq....how very surprising.


The fervently anti-statist PheonixAsh, good for accusing people of "state apologia" and other such groundless platitudes, has demonstrated in a few sentences precisely how he emulates and reproduces the logic of the state. Communists, conversely, see individuals as rational beings accountable and responsible for their positions. That's why even during Stalinist purges stupid things like confessions were necessary, even if forced. How does it feel to be ideologically more statist than Stalinists, Phoenix? Things cannot be dismissed by merit of origin. Things can be explained, things can be articulated, things can be criticized or opposed - but not dismissed by merit of identity or origin. If you can't, for example, properly dismantle the justifications Fascists have for themselves, then deep down you are under the impression that your ideas and the ideas of fascists are equal but different - that theirs is just another "world-view" equally grounded in their subjective reality that you simply label and oppose to conform to your own. I think we can all see this blatant postmodernism for what it is.

trololololol

Read the fucking thread Rafiq....and while you are at it you may as well read all the exchanges between me and FSL over the years of which you liked quite a few of my posts. The arguments have been made ad nauseum. Both in this thread and outside.

I know you are still very much hurt inside because I called you out on your sexual moralizing and parotting of patriarchal positions which leech off your madonna whore complex in which women don't know what they want, can't know what they want and their opinions and decisions in sexual matters are entirely irrelevant because you,...as a privileged male says so.

Now kindly fuck off with your preposterous lingism, straw man arguments and your ridiculous positions using terminology you do not even begin to understand let alone are able to apply correctly.

What a fucking clown you are....

:laugh:

[Rafiq]

I was inactive on the forum for a while. I did not continue the discussion on prostitution because I felt it fell out of context. Now that you mention it, and being that there is still confusion or blatant ignorance on the matter, I'm going to continue the discussion later. Knowing full well you are little different from an MRA, I still will address what's left of your pile of shit of groundless accusations which were gurgitated over and over like a fucking broken record. That's how discussion works. Pheonix, the fact is that if you actually believe your posts have ever had a semblance of impact on me at all - they were completely inconsistent and postulated dishonestly. Every moron could see this. Phoenix, your posts are of literally no consequence. All equal in worthlessness.

[Rafiq]

You make claims, but you haven't demonstrated any of them. If you can't show how what I said was erroneous, keep your fucking mouth shut. Fucking piece of shit excuse for an admin - how the fuck are you allowed to flame as you do?

[PhoenixAsh]

I was inactive on the forum for a while.

And my god that was such a freaking lovely time.


I did not continue the discussion on prostitution because I felt it fell out of context. Now that you mention it, and being that there is still confusion or blatant ignorance on the matter, I'm going to continue the discussion later. Knowing full well you are little different from an MRA, I still will address what's left of your pile of shit of groundless accusations which were gurgitated over and over like a fucking broken record. That's how discussion works. Pheonix, the fact is that if you actually believe your posts have ever had a semblance of impact on me at all - they were completely inconsistent and postulated dishonestly. Every moron could see this. Phoenix, your posts are of literally no consequence. All equal in worthlessness.

I am not under the illusion that anything except your over inflated self worth has any impact on you and it has been proven time and time again that you think the word diatribes you vomit out of your fingers into this forum is the Gospel according to Rafiq and which will invariably never ever change...at all. Everybody is wrong....here is Rafiq to tell you all what worthless your opinion is and how he has the right, correct and only correct answer...which is beyond criticism and debate....also women don't know what they want and should be told the correct way to have sex. Because their opinions don't matter per default because Rafiq does not approve of women.

Just go away Rafiq. Become inactive again....that is basically the only way you will ever matter: by not being there.

[PhoenixAsh]

You make claims, but you haven't demonstrated any of them. If you can't show how what I said was erroneous, keep your fucking mouth shut. Fucking piece of shit excuse for an admin - how the fuck are you allowed to flame as you do?

Again Rafiq...you can't be more wrong. I am a mod and not an admin. I know facts are hard for you. I quoted you in that thread...I quoted the nasty, sexist patriarchal things you said. Others quoted your vile attitude and pointed it out to you. But in the end even being confronted by the shit you typed yourself does not deter you from actually thinking that yoiu are the only one who knows anything and that your opinions is undisputable fact.

Now...go be a patriarchal sexist somewhere else. I am certain there are plentyof fora where you can tell women what they actually want and how they shoud conduct their sex lives. Hell...I am absolutely positive there will even be some sites where you can pay them and have them pretend to like it and admite you....if that is your fetish.

[Rafiq]

I said free choice does not exist. I didn't say it shoudlnt exist, I said it doesn't. I.e., justifying prostitution by saying they chose it does not justify it. That does not imply it should be made illegal, but that it cannot be justified by the notion of free choice.

Provide a single sentence of mine which implies that there should be consciously mandated control, whether through political force or preaching, over women's bodies. Give me one and I'll become inactive forever. I promise. Give me one of these vile, sexist quotes and you will be free to phrase monger here forever without me demonstrating what a fucking dolt you are.

[Rafiq]

And my god that was such a freaking lovely time.



I am not under the illusion that anything except your over inflated self worth has any impact on you and it has been proven time and time again that you think the word diatribes you vomit out of your fingers into this forum is the Gospel according to Rafiq and which will invariably never ever change...at all. Everybody is wrong....here is Rafiq to tell you all what worthless your opinion is and how he has the right, correct and only correct answer...which is beyond criticism and debate....also women don't know what they want and should be told the correct way to have sex. Because their opinions don't matter per default because Rafiq does not approve of women.

Just go away Rafiq. Become inactive again....that is basically the only way you will ever matter: by not being there.

It's hilarious because you're doing the same thing - my posts cannot be valid because it would be ridiculous if they were, I.e. I am not qualified, I cannot "always be right". Yet you haven't once demonstrated this. I'm not saying I can't be wrong, I'm saying you haven't demonstrated this. Saying "Rafiq thinks his word is divine" does not actually constitute an argument against anything I've said. it's a platitude which attempts to portray my perceived identity. The fact s that I've never attacked anyone solely on grounds for disagree with me. I never have even implied that people are wrong by merit of not agreeing alone. If I have, provide examples to support your conclusion.

The fact is that this response of yours can only be understood as a desperate infantile defense mechanism. You see I am right, you cannot properly articulate it as wrong, so you resort to a pathetic last resort - "Rafiq thinks he's always right". No, this might be what YOU THINK (that I'm always right) but it has fuck all to do with me. Its how you justify being overwhelmed. You cannot show how I'm wrong, so you resort to a claim to ridiculousness - fitting me into the archetype of someone with delusions of grandeur, to be dismissed as this person must be ridiculous. No one cares about your dishonest coping mechanisms. If you can't respond, fuck off.

[Rafiq]

And when I say I'm not speaking from any internal brilliance but adherence to a theoretical universe external from me, it's perceived as an elaboration of a narcissistic pathology. The bourgeois ideologues cannot articulate ideas for what they are - collectively refined and "outside" of us, beyond us. This is why it always gets personal - creating an identity and fitting it into a legitimized hierarchy of truth IS THE ONLY means by which our resident intellectual statists can perceive or understand ANY (perceived) truth. It is dangerous and frankly scary for them to accept that a theoretical commons which is grounded in truth can exist outside the approach to truth which reinforces the present state apparatus.

There are no intelligent men and women who have qualified access to truth. Truth is accessible to ALL, our theoretical legacy exists in common. This is dangerous for our social order. There is no magic key to theoretical sophistication. There is only the ability to have faith, yes faith - in the (or a potential) struggle of the exploited. Or, an ability to be unbound by the overwhelming ideological forces which "put us in our place", as unqualified, intellectually.

[Redistribute the Rep]

Leave the personal grudges and drama from other threads out, and focus on the discussion at hand.

Some of these posts do nothing to contribute to discussion and would fit better in PMs.

[New International]

I agree with you about the need for unity and willingness to put aside differences among the anti-Capitalist Left. Too many people dismiss any sort of reformism as though it somehow nullifies the ultimate goal of revolution. Victories no matter how small are needed to build confidence and public support. It's also important to create a viable opposition to the rising Right wing sentiment echoing through Europe.

What I find frustrating is that declaring a need for unity and tactics inside the framework of the current social conditions often leads to hostility and personal attacks from those who would otherwise be Comrades. This happens to me constantly, but I am happy to show solidarity with Comrades in Syriza insofar as they oppose austerity on Greek workers.

[PhoenixAsh]

Hahaha. I will totally admit that I am neither the most fluent or well versed member on this forum...but next to the rancid petit-bourgeois filth you produce I am a fucking Saint.

Now my reference to your blatant sexism and Madonna whore complex was because you are angry I called you out on it. I and several other users have already quoted you on it and you continue to gloss over it and refuse to take responsibility. I hardly think it is believable that you will fuck off when I re quote you again. That remark however was not a kick-start for rehashing that debate. You are an ignorant dolt on the subject and I have no interest in revising your petit bourgeois sexist morality for the fourth time in a year. The remark was meant to tell you that you are attacking me because of your personal vendetta against me and what a fucking hypocritical as shat you are when you attack me on an ongoing debate you yourself thanked me more than 150 times over in the past.

now go slither back into the slime filled hole you slithered out of.

[PhoenixAsh]

I agree with you about the need for unity and willingness to put aside differences among the anti-Capitalist Left. Too many people dismiss any sort of reformism as though it somehow nullifies the ultimate goal of revolution. Victories no matter how small are needed to build confidence and public support. It's also important to create a viable opposition to the rising Right wing sentiment echoing through Europe.

What I find frustrating is that declaring a need for unity and tactics inside the framework of the current social conditions often leads to hostility and personal attacks from those who would otherwise be Comrades. This happens to me constantly, but I am happy to show solidarity with Comrades in Syriza insofar as they oppose austerity on Greek workers.

While the concept of unity is nice in the face of the continued and persistent dominion of the current capitalist situation the difference of opinion and ideology make unity an impossibility.

These are not merely theoretical differences which you can put on hold but are fundamental ideological differences which are insurmountable.

For example. Anarchists will never again work with Bolsheviks as a movement. And while individual cooperation and collaboration on particular issues is still something which can, and does, happen the animosity between these two groups is fuelled by the fact that when Bolsheviks eventually start to dominate a movement....the anarchists will be the first to end up in the concentration camps and before the firing squads. There has been too much betrayal and too much ideological propaganda and rhetoric which make the ideological differences from which they originate seem small and insignificant in comparison.

And these ideological differences are a real factor. Anarchists do not believe in a vanguard (even less so a Bolshevik vanguard); we do not believe in an extended DoTP or a transition phase ala Lenin. We do not believe in the borganizational forms of the Bolsheviks. We do not believe in state capitalism or capitalization of economies. And we do not believe in a central authority which rules over the proletariat. As a result the vast majority of Anarchists see Bolsheviks not as an anti-capitalist organization or movement...but as a continuation of the suppression of the proletariat by other means. Conversely the Bolsheviks see the Anarchists as petit-bourgeois deviant utopianists...for which they have many arguments most of which are straw man and red herrings.

You can't pretend to be friends working to a common goal....with such differences.

[FSL]

A good, balanced article from Jacobin

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/01/syriza-greece-election-tina/

In this way, the strategic and tactical failure that underlies the sectarian tendency to oppose Syriza for being reformist is that if Syriza loses — if the ideology of TINA wins out yet again — the Left in Greece (and Europe more generally) is finished for the foreseeable future.

The left that adopts the idea that TINA to capitalism is already dead as far as workers' material interests are concerned.

What is the point here? That the modern left will face an electoral death? Great news though I doubt it. I was discussing this with someone a while ago and from what I could gather, it doesn't matter how bad things turn out with Syriza or Podemos, he'll still be on the lookout for similar parties to support.



A victory for Syriza holds the potential to not only reverse the failed and barbaric polices of austerity but also to reassert the primacy of politics.
Is the guy illiterate? Primacy of politic over what, the economy?
Do these people have something against Marx?

[Epictetus]

Neither SYRIZA nor KKE are revolutionary parties.
This basically sums up what SYRIZA supporters think about being revolutionary:


Syriza is revolutionary. Socially and Economically. It will make Greece a secular and a socialist state. Most members here tend to believe that SYRIZA is reformist,but this is not the point.
Making the banks public, higher taxes for rich people, free electricity and water and it goes on... isn't that radical?

Reeks of social democracy.