Calling out the Far Left on this day of May!

[Diogenese]

Comrades!
Anarchists, Anarcho-Communists, Communards, Situationists!
I left this forum over a year ago because it was full of zionist loving trotskites not shy of using authority to purge others, the calling card of state-communists.
I moved over to ******** which at least is just full of trotskites with a more democratic bend. Its a little less hypocrisy, enough that I can bear and at least am free to speak my mind without moderators threatening me or attempts at personal attacks like I give a shit on anonymous forums.
However, I am still the sole voice of reason from the far left even on ******** which is made up of people banned from here or who were just sick of it enough to look for alternatives, so I expected a far more radical crowd.
Instead this type of recent and unfortunately still ongoing discussion http://www.********.com/showthread.php?3098-Anti-Fascists-in-the-US
is the type of insanity I have to deal with.
So to the moderators on here deciding on how to delete this post, send me your banned and unwanted.
To the rest of you, if you disagree with the facts I put forth in the discussion I mentioned, then by all means please stay put.
If you agree with the very simple and logical line that's been drawn then come to my defense. I refuse to believe that I'm the only one on the left that doesn't believe in nationalism and its sad socialism. Is the left full of fucking fascists? I'm genuinely interested on the thoughts on this from this community as well as I find it central to everything we stand for.
ps thanks for not banning me after all.

Salutations,
SFSN,
Dio.

[Diogenese]

wow thats hilarious...what fine censorship, this is why I left..

[Atsumari]

Topkek
Xhar Xhar would probably like to have a word with you about your perception of Trots

[ChangeAndChance]

Wow, that was like the most cynical, narcissistic hissy fit I've ever read on these forums. :laugh:

[Tim Cornelis]

You don't seem to have a basic idea of any of the political terms you're using, but whatever.

[Diogenese]

You don't seem to have a basic idea of any of the political terms you're using, but whatever.

No it seems everyone else who calls themselves the left don't understand the definitions, but I'm not gonna fight this fight on two fronts so say what you will.

[DOOM]

The future of the far left is at stake, better join the comrades before the zionist trot burgs take over

[motion denied]

it's peanut butter jelly time

[A Revolutionary Tool]

I'm really interested in seeing the site he links to purely because it's censored.

[Sinister Intents]

Lol, this dude sounds really unintelligent. "State communism" yah that totes not a contradiction

[Fourth Internationalist]

It's from Rev Forum.

[Tim Cornelis]

"none of this makes sense" -- Asero.

/thread

and that applies to both threads.

[Diogenese]

We talk about our views (this "tendency" talk you dislike) that have existed for much longer than your system of beliefs about fascism and nazism, yet somehow we're crazy for not conforming to new belief systems like yours! Marxism isn't Nazism (national socialism) no matter how much you repeat it (this is what I assume you're implying by calling me a national socialist, no?)

Yet you fail to point me to any other sources that agree with your "reality".


I didn't think you were gonna force me to waste my time on this elementary shit but I have to say this is going to be worth it.
You people have obviously no idea what you are talking about, most of the trotskies were right to stay out of this one as they're the only ones who attempt to define fascism.
After reading this post if you still refuse to submit to the supremacy of my reason then you my comrade have an even bigger ego then I and I hope you have something to show for it, otherwise, apologize for making me defend the most basic facts of our reality!

First lets start of with the Mussolini Manifesto CJ put forth titled

THE DOCTRINE OF FASCISM

BENITO MUSSOLINI (1932)

(ONLY COMPLETE OFFICIAL TEXT ON THE INTERNET)

In it there is a section titled helpfully enough

POLITICAL AND SOCIAL DOCTRINE - EVOLUTION FROM SOCIALISM

This is how it starts off, and I quote:

"When in the now distant March of 1919, speaking through the columns of the Popolo d'Italia I summoned to Milan the surviving interventionists who had intervened, and who had followed me ever since the foundation of the Fasci of revolutionary action in January 1915, I had in mind no specific doctrinal program. The only doctrine of which I had practical experience was that of socialism, from until the winter of 1914 - nearly a decade. My experience was that both of a follower and a leader but it was not doctrinal experience. My doctrine during that period had been the doctrine of action. A uniform, universally accepted doctrine of Socialism had not existed since 1905, when the revisionist movement, headed by Bernstein, arose in Germany, countered by the formation, in the see-saw of tendencies, of a left revolutionary movement which in Italy never quitted the field of phrases, whereas, in the case of Russian socialism, it became the prelude to Bolshevism."

From that same section when he's faced with the inevitability of corporatism in National Socialism.


"It may be objected that this program implies a return to the guilds (corporazioni). No matter!. I therefore hope this assembly will accept the economic claims advanced by national syndicalism …"

I shit you the fuck not, that is literally how the paragraph ends, he basically says "whatever..I hope you like this shit.."

Two sections later there is one titled
REJECTION OF MARXISM


"Such a conception of life makes Fascism the resolute negation of the doctrine underlying so-called scientific and Marxian socialism, the doctrine of historic materialism which would explain the history of mankind in terms of the class struggle and by changes in the processes and instruments of production, to the exclusion of all else.
That the vicissitudes of economic life - discoveries of raw materials, new technical processes, and scientific inventions - have their importance, no one denies; but that they suffice to explain human history to the exclusion of other factors is absurd. Fascism believes now and always in sanctity and heroism, that is to say in acts in which no economic motive - remote or immediate - is at work. Having denied historic materialism, which sees in men mere puppets on the surface of history, appearing and disappearing on the crest of the waves while in the depths the real directing forces move and work, Fascism also denies the immutable and irreparable character of the class struggle which is the natural outcome of this economic conception of history; above all it denies that the class struggle is the preponderating agent in social transformations. Having thus struck a blow at socialism in the two main points of its doctrine, all that remains of it is the sentimental aspiration, old as humanity itself-toward social relations in which the sufferings and sorrows of the humbler folk will be alleviated. But here again Fascism rejects the economic interpretation of felicity as something to be secured socialistically, almost automatically, at a given stage of economic evolution when all will be assured a maximum of material comfort. Fascism denies the materialistic conception of happiness as a possibility, and abandons it to the economists of the mid-eighteenth century. This means that Fascism denies the equation: well-being = happiness, which sees in men mere animals, content when they can feed and fatten, thus reducing them to a vegetative existence pure and simple."

What he's basically saying is "I don't know about your historical revisionism as a struggle between master and slave, I like the idea of socialism taking care of people but I don't know about giving it out willy nilly they have to earn it through courage, feats of mythological heroism and ability, and we don't want no fatties!"

Now there's more examples from that document but lets move on to the good shit that you trotskies are gonna love.

I got all the following from trotsky.net, which I never visited before or had ever read this document before you asked me for sources..
It is titled
Trotsky and the struggle against Fascism
http://www.trotsky.net/trotsky_year/fascism.html

In it the trotskies ask themselves if they have the right definition of fascism? If Trotsky knew what he was talking about and if the definition was sufficient to describe fascism and its progression after the death of Trotsky, which up until that point had changed on numerous occasions. It goes on to explain the resurgence of the extreme right, asks What is Fascism?, talks about the crisis of capitalism and ends with "Fascism today?"
That is the exact shit I have been talking about over and over and you people have been denying as insane.
Here is some quotes to further prove my most basic points that National Socialism = Fascism, that bourgeois democracies are as good as totalitarian systems at fascism, and that we live in a period of reckoning for the past 20 years as fascism no longer needs to compete with the Soviet Union.



"Leon Trotsky spent the last decade of his life in a struggle to keep alive the genuine method of Marxism in all fields. While on all sides Marxism was being distorted and misused both by the Stalinists and the Social Democracy to justify their own betrayal of the working class movement, Trotsky consistently put forward a revolutionary position on all problems facing the workers."

Exactly what we were talking about when you accused me of distorting socialism, its already been distorted, not by me certainly. Before my time..



"One of the immediate dangers facing the international working class was the rise of fascism and therefore this new phenomenon clearly needed to be understood. Trotsky grappled with this question over a period of many years, starting with the rise of Mussolini in Italy in 1922, then going on to the rise of Hitler in Germany in the early 1930s, followed by an analysis of events in France and then Spain. His writings on this subject are still valid today and should be studied by the new generation of labour and student activists."

No shit, we shouldn't just be stuck in some pre-WWII theory land? You mean like critically think about recent and past events? I dunno about all that..can we handle that comrades?


"Many on the left today use the word Fascist very loosely. It has become more a term of general abuse against reactionaries in general. It is used to describe parties such as Haider's FPO in Austria, or Fini's AN in Italy, without taking into consideration the historical circumstances that brought fascism into being. Such an approach can only lead to a lowering of the understanding of what fascism really is, and thus can lead to mistakes in how to fight it."

There's a reason we use it loosely, they're all around you, you elect them into office, you work for their corporations, you negotiate with them through your unions, you educate their slaves.. How you gonna fight it if you define it as some specific occurrence in history that will never again manifest itself again under those same terms and conditions, its already all around you and you refuse to believe it because you are invested in the fascism one way or another. Fascism has evolved, but why believe me, hear it from the trotskies:


"For a long period after the Second World War the danger of Fascism seemed to have receded. On the basis of the long post-war upswing capitalism was able to stabilise itself for a period, and thus the capitalist class could do without the jackboot. It was able to maintain control over society through the granting of reforms. Thus we had a situation where for decades most of Western Europe was governed by 'democratic' conservative parties, like the Tories in Britain or the Christian Democrats in Germany and Italy, and when these failed the "second eleven" could be brought in, such as the Labour Party in Britain or the Social Democrats in Germany. In some countries like Sweden or Austria the Social Democracy actually governed for decades almost unchallenged."

Well that sounds like something the voice of reason from the far left would say..
Kept their political power through national socialism while granting half-assed reforms from the collapse of fascism to the collapse of communism, is what I said as I recall..

But once again lets hear it from the trotskies,


"However, in the past period we have seen a resurgence of the more extreme right wing variant of bourgeois party. This in itself is sufficient confirmation of the fact that the period of consensus politics is over. Capitalism can no longer afford the reforms upon which the stability of the post-war period was based. The welfare state has been under attack for more than twenty years. Trade union rights have been wittled away."

Oh dam that's exactly what I said in an earlier post about democracies being subservient to economic realities..
I also said don't be fooled by the version of national socialism you have been exposed to, now they don't need to compete with the Soviet Union anymore for propaganda. For the past "twenty years" since the 80s there has been an erosion of unions and economic gains and reforms especially for those who need it the most. The fascists are showing their true face..
But why believe what silly old Diogenese has to say on some random liberal forum,
once again lets take it from the trotskies:


"What many do not realise is that the period of reforms of the 1950s and 1960s was not the normal state of capitalism. It was an exception. Now capitalism is returning to its more normal, and therefore more brutal, state. With this comes a greater differentiation between the classes. The gap between the rich and the poor is growing. At the same time the welfare guarantees, that softened the blow for the poorer sections of society in the past, have been reduced."

Told you so, told you so, na nah na na nah..
I'm so childish and silly..
Now lets listen to some more Trotsky wisdom while I slowly shove my wet thumb up your ass..


"As there has been a constant misunderstanding and confusion on the use of "petit bourgeoisie" and "middle classes" some defining words seem to be necessary (although a thorough analysis of the class relations in society has been worked out elsewhere). Apart from the two opposing classes - the proletariat and bourgeoisie - which represent irreconcilable interests - the first having nothing more than their labour power to sell, the latter owning the means of production - Marx defined a class "hanging" somehow in between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie: the petit bourgeoisie. This includes first of all those who still own their means of production but who are under constant pressure of large-scale production and therefore suffering from self-exploitation and the danger of being put out of business: shopkeepers, artisans, small and middle peasants, etc."

Oh I see, so the petit bourgeoisie and whats left of the proletariat are the ones that get to afford a daily internet connection in order to ***** and analyze events from a hundred years ago while remaining completely blind to the fascism they currently live under and support one way or another.
Lets move on..


"The term "middle classes" on the other hand is used - especially by the bourgeoisie media - in very vague way comprising all those with a certain level of income. The point is however that many of these are actually part of the working class and become ever more "proletarianised". This is especially the case with the formerly "privileged" white collar workers who are now under constant pressure of downsizing, less income and worsening working conditions."

Au contraire,
Why do you think there is pressure? Why is everyone downsizing?
The fascists are going through their motions like after the last great depression.
Industry and the management of it, is now relegated and sub-contracted to communist and authoritarian regimes as to avoid dealing with actual unions or anyone that pays anything.
The western bourgeois democracies are now almost entirely reliant on the service economy. When there is no industry and you only have service industry the proletariat is relegated to the construction, transport and maintenance industry. Everyone else either becomes the petite-bourgeoisie or the really poor, with a very few bourgeoisie at the top.

Finally we disagree on something..

Moving on..


"Added to this has been the discrediting of the classical bourgeois parties who tried to straddle the so-called "centre" ground. For example, the collapse of the Christian Democracy in Italy opened up big possibilities for the workers' organisations. But because the leadership of these organisations only had one perspective, that of managing capitalism rather than overthrowing it, they have taken part of the blame for the cuts in welfare spending, for the reduction of trade union rights, for the increased taxation, etc. etc."

Did they just say bourgeois straddling the center? As in like the extreme center Dio was talking about?
"Classical" bourgeois, as in petite-bourgoise? The land owners? the shop keepers? the "professionals"? The masses and fascists of today? Trotskies forgot to include one huge group into the equation which tips the masses into loyal fascists. The introduction of a new petite-bourgouise of the service industry and sub-contracting, one who doesn't own his means of production, sells his labor, but eternally remains loyal to his corporation because his stocks and pensions are invested in the corporation he works in, therefore making them part owner, none of the benefits and all the burdens, in other words, the petite-bourgeois.
It's this class that they are able to scare with all the immigrant and racist bullshit, and claim to be defenders of small business while supporting big business.
Its quite genius for fucking fascists no?


"Faced with no credible alternative on the left the demagogic right has been able to emerge. And racism is a strong element in the propaganda of these extreme right wing parties. They use the influx of sizeable numbers of immigrants to scare the middle classes and the lumpenproletariat. This has led a section of the middle classes, some of the poorer sections of society and even parts of the working class traditionally voting for the reformist parties, to swing over to the right."

Oh dam, I wonder why Trotskies, that's right, I just told you why..

Now we get to the part where they ask themselves:

What is fascism?


"These developments have placed back on the agenda the question 'What is Fascism?' Are parties such as the FPO or the AN Fascist parties? Do they represent the beginnings of new fascist movements along the lines of Hitler and Mussolini? The labour movement must come up with answers to these questions, as they determine the very future of the working class itself."

Good luck with that since you refuse to call fascism for what it really is..national socialism, but wait, aren't all nations nationalist and have some level of socialism? Ding ding..



"In order to answer these questions clearly we have to look at Trotsky's analysis of what fascism was. From Trotsky's writings it is clear that fascism is not a general term used to describe all forms of reactionary regimes. The term has a more scientific meaning. Trotsky clearly distinguished between different forms of reactionary regimes. This was necessary in order to understand what the labour movement was up against in each particular situation. The triumph of fascism is only possible on the basis of certain historical circumstances, of a particular balance of class forces. To mistake a temporary, weak bonapartist regime for Fascism could lead to serious errors on the part of the revolutionary proletariat."

Hmm am I mistaking the capitalist empire built on debt and national socialism for a weak bonapartist regime? Nope.
Well, this Trotsky sounds wise, lets see what he has to say instead of his minions..


"A clear example of this emerges in one of Trotsky's letters to Max Shachtman, 'What is Fascism?' written on November 15, 1932. In it he underlines the difference between the bonapartist dictatorship of Primo de Rivera in Spain between 1923 and 1930, and the Fascist dictatorship in Italy under Mussolini. "Why quibble over such detail?" some may ask, "aren't they all dictatorships?"

Why indeed brother Trot? Why must your minions attack me and quibble over such detail?
Whats the difference whether they achieve the obedience of the masses through force or through spectacle?


"Trotsky asks the question in his letter, "Were all the forms of counterrevolutionary dictatorship fascist or not (that is, prior to the advent of fascism in Italy)?"

Hmm très intéressant.. like in the hay day of socialism? Like how May Day started?


"The fascist movement in Italy was a spontaneous movement of large masses with new leaders from the rank and file. It is a plebeian movement in origin, directed and financed by big capitalist powers. It issued forth from the petty bourgeoisie, the lumpenproletariat, and even to a certain extent from the proletarian masses; Mussolini, a former socialist, is a "self-made" man arising from this movement."

Hmm..so these peasant masses organized themselves into classes run by national identity through big money and corporatism? and were inspired by socialism?! That can't be right..cause then Dio would be right..


"The movement in Germany is most analogous to the Italian. It is a mass movement, with its leaders employing a great deal of socialist demagogy. This is necessary for the creation of the mass movement."

Fucking Trotsky, how dare he try to redefine the meaning of socialism all of us marxists have been believing in all these hundreds of years eh?.


"The working class in Italy could have carried a revolution in the period 1918-20. This culminated in the occupation of the factories in September 1920. The Socialist Party was growing rapidly. In two years the union had increased their membership ten times over. In the south a mass movement was developing among the peasants. Power was there for the taking. But the Socialist Party leadership had a different perspective. They saw the next stage of development of society as bourgeois. Their perspective was that of the bourgeois democratic revolution, along the same lines as the Mensheviks in Russia. Unfortunately in Italy there was no Bolshevik party to lead the workers to power."

So Trotsky means to tell me that from 1918-1920 while the Bolsheviks were consolidating power in their own version of socialism in a state, there was ANOTHER version of state-socialism that developed in Italy? Like one not based on co-ops and worker ownership of the means of production? THATS INSANE, what would they call such a thing? National Socialism?


"Trotsky explained that fascism emerges as a force when capitalism enters a severe crisis, when it can no longer govern on the basis of granting reforms and thus stabilise society. It emerges when the ruling class needs to smash the organisations of the working class. But precisely because the ruling class itself is too small a social base with which to hold down the workers it needs to mobilise the petty bourgeoisie which has been driven crazy by the crisis of capitalism itself. The masses of the petty bourgeoisie (together with the lumpenproletariat and even some of the more backward layers of the workers) thus provide an army of spies and collaborators, present in every street, every block, every factory, with which to control and hold down the working class."

So I see now, they are national socialists when they act like bourgeois democracies, but they are fascists only as an emergency measure..
So what then would Trotsky say of our world, where the Soviet Union he fought so hard to establish is long dead. Where there has been a depression and recession since 2008 worldwide? Where most of the western bourgeois nations are in a constant state of war and policy is determined by the military industrial complex?
No those aren't fascists I suppose, those are just your friendly type of bourgeois.
Army of spies and collaborators? I don't know what you're talking about, no one reads my shit or randomly searches me and that's just a friendly police man on the corner, all the time..


"Trotsky explained that it is not possible to hold down the working class for long simply by using the forces of the military police state apparatus. Thus what we saw in Germany and Italy was the bourgeoisie using the fascists to smash the labour movement. But it paid a price for this, it lost immediate political power in handing it over to demagogues such as Hitler and Mussolini, who based themselves precisely on this frenzied petty bourgeoisie.

I see, so like conservative youth that get to act out without any consequence as long as their parents got money and they put on a suit after they graduate and act like a good yuppie.
If only Trotsky had lived to see the spectacle they would build to accomplish all this without domestic brute force, for the most part..



"They may say, and this is true to a certain extent, that the new middle class, the functionaries of the state, the private administrators, etc., etc., can form such a base. But this is a new question that must be analysed. This is a supposition. It is necessary to analyse just what it will be. It is necessary to foresee the fascist movement growing from this or that element. But this is only a perspective, which is controlled by events. I am not affirming that it is impossible for a fascist movement to develop in England, or for a Mosley or someone else to become a dictator. This is a question for the future. It is a far-fetched possibility."

Not too long in the future, should've seen Baroness Thatcher and the god of conservatives at work..

Now lets end this ridiculous discussion with some more wisdom from comrade Trotsky.


"To speak of it now as an imminent danger is not a prognosis but a mere prophecy. In order to be capable of foreseeing anything with regard to fascism it is necessary to have a definition of that idea. What is fascism? What are its base, its form, and its characteristics? How will its development take place?"

I just told you all, extensively throughout this discussion, how that development has taken place since the days of Trotsky, and have proved it to you on numerous occasions and with several examples and now sources which you seem to think didn't exist.
As I've said you people are stuck in the 19th century talking about things that will never exist again, while fascists have been organizing and growing in power. As I have proven through numerous occasions and examples, this is fascism! If you refuse to believe it, its only to your own detriment.
I think all of you need to familiarize yourself with the post great depression version of capitalism called advanced capitalism which will help you understand the current form of National Socialism!

Here's some stuff to point you in the right direction at least..

https://vimeo.com/60945809

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Century_of_the_Self

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Foucault

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Paul_Sartre


Watch, Read, Listen, Learn, feed your silly little fascist heads and when you're done grieving through denial and anger, do something about it.

[Rafiq]

Did you just link Wikipedia pages of Foucault and Sartre? Why? How in any meaningful sense could this "guide us" towards the right path?

You're either a troll, or, and in all sincerity, your mental health has been left unchecked. For those unfamiliar, this is the same user who, about a year ago, claimed he shed tears at the sight of the sublimity of reactionary Orthodox Jews (Keep in mind that some "anti-zionist" Orthodox Jews were in Tehran during the international holocaust denial conference, to give you a picture of the type of people they are) fervently denouncing Israel, which allowed him to overcome his overt anti-semitism (Instead of openly saying you personally dislike all Jews, now it's only the eternal figure of the Jew!). It is a surprise you have not been banned.

[Cliff Paul]

If you don't want people to attack you personally then maybe you shouldn't start all of your posts with personal attacks or pompous statements about how you are "the sole voice of reason" among the left.

[Diogenese]

So apparently I'm an anti-semite,
Rafiq is a pussy traitor,
And Illuminates fragile ego is threatened by my own.
Got it..
Anyone else got anything intelligent to say?
Anything to counter my points?
No?
Looks like I remain the sole voice of reason on the far left..

[Cliff Paul]

Rafiq is a pussy traitor

good job. you are now banned. bye

[Atsumari]

So apparently I'm an anti-semite,
Rafiq is a pussy traitor,
And Illuminates fragile ego is threatened by my own.
Got it..
Anyone else got anything intelligent to say?
Anything to counter my points?
No?
Looks like I remain the sole voice of reason on the far left..
Gimme an insult before you are banned. I wanna be part of the club

[mushroompizza]

Is this guy mad at Stalinists or something? Im a Left Commie if that helps? :confused:

[Tim Cornelis]

I don't know what point you're trying to make by wildly quoting 'Mussolini' (Giovanni Gentile). In the 1920s a political phenomenon came to state power which developed unique forms of political rule. We use the word 'fascism' for this. The unique nature of this phenomenon is the point of departure of an analysis of fascism. So if you start with saying that all forms of capitalist rule are fascist then you already disqualify yourself and prove you don't know the first thing about fascism.

[Rafiq]

So apparently I'm an anti-semite,
Rafiq is a pussy traitor,

Rafiq is a pussy and yet Diogenese openly admitted to shedding tears in the sublime midst of an Orthodox Jew denouncing Israel on religious grounds. What makes you so pathetically weak is not so much the fact that you cried alone, but that this was so powerful for you that it led you to cry. It means that you're so intellectually meek and ignorant that a reality as so banal and inconsequential as the obvious fact that not all Jews support Israel was beyond you until you saw it for yourself.

As such, you should know that the tears do not end there: You will cry again once you realize that degenerate reactionaries, and petite-bourgeois socialists of all stripes actually have infinitely more in common with your sick pathologies than the so-called Left ever can, that your never ending disappointment with "The left" is actually grounded in your inability to search hard enough for like minded scum on the right. Do not despair, you will find them soon enough.

[DOOM]

Haha I love the mod who decided to leave this thread open
you're a hero

[Diogenese]

I don't know what point you're trying to make by wildly quoting 'Mussolini' (Giovanni Gentile). In the 1920s a political phenomenon came to state power which developed unique forms of political rule. We use the word 'fascism' for this. The unique nature of this phenomenon is the point of departure of an analysis of fascism. So if you start with saying that all forms of capitalist rule are fascist then you already disqualify yourself and prove you don't know the first thing about fascism.

Yeah I suppose you're gonna educate me eh?
If you read anything I wrote I was making the point that Nationalism is the root of all Fascism because it inevitably leads to corporatist form of socialism which is national socialism which is fascism! This form of National Socialism is what everyone lives under today..
Quoting Trotsky and his minions just proved my point..

[BIXX]

So apparently I'm an anti-semite,
Rafiq is a pussy traitor,
And Illuminates fragile ego is threatened by my own.
Got it..
Anyone else got anything intelligent to say?
Anything to counter my points?
No?
Looks like I remain the sole voice of reason on the far left..

I don't even like rafiq (in fact I famously hate him) but seriously dude

[OGG]

This form of National Socialism is what everyone lives under today..
lol

[Tim Cornelis]

Yeah I suppose you're gonna educate me eh?

No, that seems like a perfect waste of time.

[Cliff Paul]

Anybody who uses the word pussy as a slur deserves to be banned. Do your shit already mods.

[Heretek]

What is this guy's point? Is he advocating for Stalinist USSR to still be around, and that the alternative are all equally fascist states? Because he keeps bringing up the fall of the USSR. Or to use his terminology, "Nazis?" I don't like modern governments, but they aren't Nazis. Fascism and imperialism are different as well. Is this just a rant against Trotskyists?

[G4b3n]

Can someone ban this pretentious fucking sexist already? Thanks.

[Tim Cornelis]

A person that uses gendered slurs may just be ignorant. That person may not be sexist 'proper', he may just have lingering sexism Banning a poster over that is stupid. A warning, yeah, but banning is over the top. Also seems like a convenient excuse to just shut him up.

[Lily Briscoe]

Can someone ban this pretentious fucking sexist already? Thanks.

Whenever I read posts of yours talking about sexism, I feel the urge to point out that you have a quote in your 'signature' by a serial rapist who advocated rape as a political tactic. Little bit weird.

Anyway, quality thread all around.

[Redistribute the Rep]

How does he have 18 rep?

[Bala Perdida]

How does he have 18 rep?
They were a thing for a while before they came out as being terrible.

[Bala Perdida]

Whenever I read posts of yours talking about sexism, I feel the urge to point out that you have a quote in your 'signature' by a serial rapist who advocated rape as a political tactic. Little bit weird.

Anyway, quality thread all around.
I got on my computer to verify this and then I was like 'oooh that guy... hmmmm' dark times.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Why are you copying and pasting the debate from Rev Forum onto RevLeft? (Post #13 of this thread is a reply to comments from a different website). Anyways, this was my reply to that from Rev Forum in case people want to read it:


Your quote from Trotsky and the Trotstkyists are often saying the exact opposite of your points are. We can see that when they say, "Many on the left today use the word Fascist very loosely. It has become more a term of general abuse against reactionaries in general." Your behavior of throwing the term around at every single post-WWII development is what they are arguing against. Trotsky, when you quoted him, literally states Mussolini is a "former socialist" (as in, he is not a socialist), and that the fascist leaders use "socialist demagogy", which is exactly the point I had made earlier about Hitler. Also stated, "But the Socialist Party leadership had a different perspective. They saw the next stage of development of society as bourgeois." He equivocates them to the psuedo-socialist (i.e. socialist in name only), anti-revolutionary Mensheviks. Mussolini and Hitler separated themselves from the Marxist understanding of socialism that Trotsky believed in: this is the "socialist demagogy" Trotsky mentioned. You are trying to argue against the Marxist/Trotskyist understanding of fascism and socialism... while quoting Trotskyists and Trotsky himself, who are saying the opposite of what you state.



Note: I am not making any further replies after these words, whether on Rev Forum or RevLeft. These are the last words on the matter with you.

[Rafiq]

Whenever I read posts of yours talking about sexism, I feel the urge to point out that you have a quote in your 'signature' by a serial rapist who advocated rape as a political tactic. Little bit weird.

Anyway, quality thread all around.
This is misleading. Cleaver never advocated rape as a political tactic, he merely recalled how at one point he was in fact a serial rapist who regarded it, in retrospect (as in, claiming that he would have regarded it, if he were not "reformed") as an "insurrectionary tactic". He claimed that looking back he was in a completely "wild, frantic and abandoned state of mind". When cleaver claims he was a serial rapist, this was before he went to prison and became involved in activism. Before then he wouldn't have any idea whatsoever what an "insurrectionary tactic" could mean in the context. At no point did the black Panthers tolerate rape of any kind, and even during his time with the Panthers he was often chastised for it.

It is, either way rather sickening that someone with such a past was able to even be associated with anything broadly identified with our historic tradition, but it's a stretch to claim he advocated rape as a political tactic when the reality is that he was plainly a serial rapist (who raped women indiscriminately) with no political convictions at the time. At the end of the day the Panthers were a thoroughly failed movement that in its later years represented the reality that all nationally based politics had been rendered obsolete for the Left. Such was the tragic culmination of the New Left: an eclectic and confused student based current without a political backbone, an embodiment of hysteria.

[Lily Briscoe]

This is misleading. Cleaver never advocated rape as a political tactic, he merely recalled how at one point he was in fact a serial rapist who regarded it, in retrospect (as in, claiming that he would have regarded it, if he were not "reformed") as an "insurrectionary tactic". Oh, excuse me.


At no point did the black Panthers tolerate rape of any kind, and even during his time with the Panthers he was often chastised for it.
This isn't true, either: https://libcom.org/history/why-i-joined-party-africana-womanist-reflection (I'm definitely not endorsing the shit politics of this article by posting it, but I think it gives some interesting insight into the sort of sexual harassment that went on within the organization, that absolutely was tolerated by the leadership).

Anyway, fuck the Black Panthers. The obsession with them on the American left is absolutely pathetic.

[Rafiq]

We see that sexual harassment and abuse was present in the party, but nowhere do we find any tolerance of rape by the Panthers here, or an indication that it defined the movement as a qhole. On the contrary, we find that the sexism of the Panthers was not an inevitable consequence of its existence but it's fundamental weakness. There is a stark difference between either openly or passively tolerating rape, and showing relunctance in combatting sexual harassment.

One should criticize the Panthers, but to say "fuck them" is not only unwarranted, but reactionary. The Panthers were at the end of the day a genuine attempt to politically mobilize now-marginalized black communities, to combat the systemic mechanisms of their repression like widespread drug abuse, etc. The point I'm getting at is that the claims leveled by the America New right, that they were a "gang" or a bunch of rapists or whatever you want, is complete bullshit. I even saw a claim that Newton forcefully sodomized Bobby Seale, who then had to get anal reconstructive surgery. This was from Horowitz: now, what evidence confirms this? It's clear that a bunch of shit has been made up to conform them to some pathalogical idea of blacks...

[Lily Briscoe]

We see that sexual harassment and abuse was present in the party, but nowhere do we find any tolerance of rape by the Panthers hereWow. Your original assertion was that the Black Panthers didn't tolerate rape of any kind. I think tolerating the practice of coercing female members into providing higher ranking males with sex with the threat of social and political repercussions for failing to comply qualifies. There certainly isn't some massive gulf between tolerating this sort of behavior and tolerating rape as you go on to imply:


There is a stark difference between either openly or passively tolerating rape, and showing relunctance in combatting sexual harassment.No, there really isn't.


One should criticize the Panthers, but to say "fuck them" is not only unwarranted, but reactionary. The Panthers were at the end of the day a genuine attempt to politically mobilize now-marginalized black communities, to combat the systemic mechanisms of their repression like widespread drug abuse, etc.Which is pretty much exactly what I mean. All you have to do is bring up the Black Panthers and suddenly almost everyone on the American left with any kind of pretension to having class politics starts fawning over how "the Panthers mobilized communities".

Anyway, I don't really care what David Horowitz says. The fact that right-wingers call Julian Assange a rapist doesn't make it untrue, nor does it mean he is a figure that communists should support.

[Rafiq]

There is no equivilency between sexual harassment and rape. Does sexual harassment perpetuate the conditions of rape? Yes. Is sexual harassment a part of rape culture? Yes. Was this (aspects of rape culture) present in the Panthers? Yes.

But RAPE ITSELF was not tolerated. Panthers who did engage in rape in any form, were denounced as enemies of the people in their newspapers to disassociate them with the movement. Seale claims an excemption where most members decided to instead physically punish a rapist, and the way this was carried out was through female members carrying out the physical punishment. According to seale, the member would never be able to remove the stigma of being a rapist (people did not forget In the party), so he left anyway. Not to say that the pressure to renounce "abstinence" is justifiable, but there is nothing unique to the Panthers about this. Prudishness of any sort among the new left in the US and Europe was always denounced as petite-bourgeois and so on. So there's nothing unique about the Panthers there. And the very link you provided suggests and cofnrims precisely the so-called cliche platitude: so why pick and choose what you want to take away from it? What any decent person can see there is someone positively recalling their experiences, but taking a critical look at the drawbacks and problems too. These are condemnable, but they could have been FIXABLE, they were not intrinsic to the Panthers as a whole. So again, rape of any sort was simply not tolerated.

And the idea that women were pressured to have sex by corrupted high ranking members is not the same as saying that rape was some kind of political tactic for them. It wasn't. It was simply not tolerated period, and as pointed out by the same link, this was due to the fundamentally flawed nature of the organs of power in the party which didn't regulate the behavior of high ranking members. If the Panthers were rapists, fine, but so were pretty much the rest of the new left as a whole then. And I don't see anybody really saying that, so it's curious why the Panthers are now the archetype of a bunch of sexual monsters.

[Asero]

Anyway, quality thread all around.

best thread 2015

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

this is second only to the counter-revolutionary burger van thread

[BIXX]

this is second only to the counter-revolutionary burger van thread
Wait what

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

Wait what

I second this sentiment.

Food trucks are counter-revolutionary?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

guy was laughing all the way to the bank

(not really)

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

http://imgur.com/fDrTnmehttp://i.imgur.com/fDrTnme.jpg

ah schumpeter

[BIXX]

http://imgur.com/fDrTnmehttp://i.imgur.com/fDrTnme.jpg

ah schumpeter
Oh OK I remember that now.

[Comrade Jacob]

good job. you are now banned. bye

I don't think he cares tbh

[Grue]

Looks like I remain the sole voice of reason on the far left..

This is nigh-legendary. Someone ring up "Great Moments in Leftism".

[Luís Henrique]

this is second only to the counter-revolutionary burger van thread

Who is Burger Van Thread? A Dutch anarchist?

Luís Henrique

************************************************** *****
This thread deserves euthanasia, as soon as possible. BA?

[PhoenixAsh]

Infraction issued retroactively to Diogenese for sexual prejudiced language.

[PhoenixAsh]

Thread closed

as soon as I found the button