How to react to christian/jewish tankies?

[Guardia Rossa]

Well, I do live in Brasil, but FFS, why do every tankie has to ignore at least a part of what Marx wrote?

How to react to a highly religious tankie trying to convince anti-religious feeling was created by evil bourgeois iluminism, and also that usual religious blattering about heresy and cancer?

[Guardia Rossa]

EDIT: Sorry about wrong forum, just realized I clicked the first I saw and also just realized I don't know where this should be put.

[Tim Cornelis]

Religious Marxism is somewhat inconsistent but I don't think it counts as 'Tankieism'. Regardless, all you can do is point out that 'anti-religious' (post-religious?) ideas in Marxism originate from a materialist analysis and that it's inconsistent to regard generalised commodity production, value, the state, family, and whatever else institution as temporary but religion somehow as supra-historical and outside the superstructure. But personally, if the person is a good communist I wouldn't bother. Religious institutions will not rise and fall based on the extent to which communists in capitalism have religious beliefs.

[Guardia Rossa]

He is christian AND tankie.

[Guardia Rossa]

Problem is he has some nazbol, conservative ideas explicit in his words.

[mushroompizza]

Ugh Tankies, religious tankies are new wow!
Tell them that every single marxist leninist leader has persecuted the religious, see how they think of that.

[Guardia Rossa]

They keep yelling Stalin was religious.
Also, they didn't persecuted, just took it off everything related to the State

[mushroompizza]

Stalin was a total atheist, thats an obvious fact.
And churches were often demolished in the USSR for being religious establishments.

[motion denied]

Manda esses caras se fuder

[Guardia Rossa]

Update: He went full reactionary, conservative and religious, partly because I kept attacking his ideas and posting texts of Karl Marx denouncing religion.

[BIXX]

Update: He went full reactionary, conservative and religious, partly because I kept attacking his ideas and posting texts of Karl Marx denouncing religion.

Do you really think you had a significant role to play?

[reviscom1]

I am with Robespierre on this one.

Fine to attack the hypocrisy, wealth and conservatism of the church (as Robespierre did) but I think that is a separate issue to the question of whether or not there is some form of God. To me, instinctively, the idea of there being no God is completely illogical.

Furthermore, I think there are actually quite a few similarities between the Marxist idea of the human race progressing inevitably towards its communist destiny and the theist idea of God's divine plan.

Finally, I think that Marxists who get worked up about religion are getting confused as to which revolution they are working towards. Neutralising a wealthy, powerful, privileged church is actually more of a matter of concern for bourgeois revolutions.

Socialist revolutions should be concentrating on eliminating the institutions of Capitalism.

PS: In the interests of disclosure I should say that I don't know what a tankie is.;)

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Christian + Tankie = Crankie.

[reviscom1]

But what's a tankie???

[Rafiq]

I am with Robespierre on this one.

In fact you are not. Robespierre's rejection of atheism has no modern equivalent, it was avowedly a rejection of what he perceived to be a lack of faithfulness in the revolution and cynicism. Since this was a bourgeois revolution, faith in the French revolution necessarily implied a faith in an external object of guarantee. Thus Robespierre's rejection of atheism was a rejection of cynicism and what he perceived to be associated with unprincipled corruption. Robespierre rightfully associated atheism with elitists who had faith neither in the revolution nor in the broad democratic French masses.

Trying to justify what is undoubtedly spiritual, intellectual, and ideological weakness and cowardice by making pretenses to Robespierre is outright blasphemous.


Fine to attack the hypocrisy, wealth and conservatism of the church (as Robespierre did) but I think that is a separate issue to the question of whether or not there is some form of God.

This is uniquely Robespierre? Robespierre did not only attack the "hypocrisy, wealth and conservatism" of the church, he rejected the church all together. The cult of the supreme being was absolutely built on the ashes of the French catholic church, which virtually all Jacobins were in agreement in consolidating its annihilation. In fact so horrifying was the cult of the supreme being and its festivals across Europe, that it may very well have its modern equivalency be atheist Communism, if we are talking about their relation to offending predominant ideology - the cult of the supreme being was absolutely the cult of the new bourgeois order, destined to either be superseded by atheist Communism (Conspiracy of the equals) or destroyed by the 'reasoned' bourgeoisie.

In fact the logic you are giving us here will be probably be one that every cleric agrees with. Saying you oppose the "hypocrisy, wealth and conservatism" of the church is almost as cliche'd as saying that you oppose 'organized religion' but still cling on to some disgusting superstition. The reality is that your hollow attempt at disassociating with what is inevitable for every and all religious creeds is not only pathetic, it does not even attack the actual, vital basis of why religion is opposed. Religion is not opposed because it is 'hypocritical', for example. This is literally the last ditch attempt of the religious and the superstitious - "oh, well I don't identify with those who defile god's sacred texts with their worldly, human filth, but none the less we share a common basis of belief".

In fact, "the church" is a dead institution. Religion in capitalism is, hegemonically, 'disorganized'. Predominant churches in the US are ad hoc, post-counter culture evangelical perversions. Little separates a church from any other 'eccentric' spiritual belief: all of them encapsulate the same superstition which disallows them to thoroughly critique (IN ITS ENTIRETY) the existing order.


To me, instinctively, the idea of there being no God is completely illogical

"Instinctively" he sais. No, sorry, do not confuse the most base ignorance and filthy superstition with "instinct", might you know that there are quite a few among us who used to be religious and who used to make pretenses to the same kinds of "instincts". Many good socialists were taught and raised as theologians, before converting to our cause. Felix Dzerzhinsky, various anti-colonial African figures, and the list goes on.

So uncritically do you accept such superstitions, that they are now 'instincts' for you. "Instinctively" he sais, that there is a deeply rooted ideological basis for your stupidity does not make it something as passively accepted as 'instinct', it just signifies that you are deeply unaware of the active psychological, ideological processes which sustain your superstitions. That you do not feel like you have to put effort in prostrating before the gods of the existing order and capital, mean nothing to us.


Furthermore, I think there are actually quite a few similarities between the Marxist idea of the human race progressing inevitably towards its communist destiny and the theist idea of God's divine plan.

Please shut the fuck up, honestly. You have taken, like all other "Left" opportunists who like to identify with our traditions for the most perverse of reasons, you have taken it upon yourself to identify with what is abjectly a straw man argument derived from what is undoubtedly confusion. Not only is this the epitome of opportunism, it is the same kind of opportunism which forms the aesthetic basis of Fascism and petty bourgeois reaction in general with a "left facade".

The example that emanates from this statement is how "Stalinists" in Russia, will fully identify with the characterizations of Stalin put forward with both liberalism and typical Left-Wing anti-Stalinism, but proudly in a mode of identifying with 'this' Stalin. Thus, Stalin's chauvinism, sexual conservatism, antisemitism, renouncement of internationalism, 'disavowal of civil liberties' and the list goes on, are not simply attacks on him, but the basis of his exaltation by Russian reactionaries. This is true for every single kind of Fascism, this kind of pseudo-cynical identification with the "straw man".

In fact, there is no inevitability outside the active will of political agents. The atheism of Communism is simple: THERE IS NO big other, THERE IS NO guarantee, divine or otherwise, there is simply NOTHING but the community of believers. As for pretenses to the "human race", this is nothing more than silly idealist metaphysics - what 'non human' race is there that we juxtapose ourselves to in this regard? Of course, the difference between "god's divine plan" and the "communist destiny" is that the latter is not an inevitability one can hold on to as some kind of guarantee. Communism is the destruction of not simply organized religion, (which has already been overthrown) but superstitions of all and any kind. The human race does not collectively 'progress' towards anything that is perceivable by some external, neutral observer. The 'progress' of the human race only exists insofar as it is the object of perception by controversies and antagonisms that manifest themselves in present day society. So yes, everything IS relative to present day society, the point of Marxism is to recognize and accept this as we are living, human beings organized in present day capitalism - which entails a social antagonism.

We will scorch the Earth of such disgusting superstitions. We will storm the gates of heaven and we will defile all that is sacred for the reactionaries. No matter their self-proclaimed pseudo-theological preferences. WE Communists have exceeded the threshold of theology, WE ALONE are heirs to the legacy of the theological conclusion of history, which is atheism (and not the pseudo-atheism of Dawkins, Harris, etc. who have merely replaced the Christian god with a pagan one). Every socialist must also be an atheist, else he is an active ideologue of the class enemy. It is as simple as that. The only way I need to prove this to everyone here, is simply ask this gentlemen his position on a number of questions: The abolition of the family, human bio-genetic engineering, transforming natural processes mercilessly to our favor, giving birth to humans artificially, not only the destruction of hyper-sexuality but the triumph of real, genuine sexual liberation, and the list goes on. These will inevitably horrify you, and that is all the evidence we need that one cannot at the same time be a socialist while adhering to such silly superstitions.

We are not here to keep the wealthy in check. We are here to annihilate them. We are not here to ascetically compensate for this with self-flagellation, either, the dream of the reactionary petty bourgeoisie, from Islamists to the now obsolete Khmer Rouge. We seek to supersede modernity, not abolish it.


Finally, I think that Marxists who get worked up about religion are getting confused as to which revolution they are working towards. Neutralising a wealthy, powerful, privileged church is actually more of a matter of concern for bourgeois revolutions.

"Marxists" he said. Listen, scoundrel, you have no right to make pretenses to "Marxism". We are getting confused, rodent? WE are getting confused? We will fight until our bitter end defending the legacy of the bourgeois revolutions. " a matter of concern for bourgeois revolutions", this idiot sais, as thought there is a dichotomy between bourgeois revolutions and proletarian revolutions. If anything, you simply shamelessly admit you are a reactionary who seeks to forgo the gains of the bourgeois revolutions, which our rotten society is doing a damn well job of enough at this point. Since the late 19th century, it became clear that Communists and Communists alone had the stomach and the guts to safeguard the legacy of the bourgeois revolutions, which is why parties from the Bolsheviks to the SPD made it their goal to defend basic democratic decency in bourgeois society and safeguard political liberties, among all other bourgeois formal rights. Socialists were at the forefront of these struggles. The forefront of BOURGEOIS democratic struggles.

Once this struggle is complete, the SUPERSESSION of bourgeois-democracy is not its abolition, it is not the FORGOING of the anti-religious nature of bourgeois revolution, but bringing it to its highest conclusion. What you fail to understand is that bourgeois revolutions are only anti-religious INSOFAR as RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS safeguarded previous older, traditional bonds. Once this task is complete, the institutions are either rehabilitated, or new superstitions arise by necessity to sustain the order of things. Capitalism requires superstition to sustain itself. You do not worship any real gods, but the holy god of capital, and we will approach you and attack you with this consideration in mind alone.

From atheism, does Communism arise. Communism concerns a controversy which is theological in nature. You have no place not only among Communists, but among the Left in general. So leave, and allow what your "instincts" will have you.

Or stay. And I will make sure that your superstitious filth has no breathing room.

[Blake's Baby]

But what's a tankie???

A Stalinist who supports the foreign policy of the Soviet Union - particularly sending tanks into Hungary in 1956.

[Mr. Piccolo]

It does not surprise me that some Tankies are religious. The Soviet Union was pretty socially conservative, at least compared to today's standards.

[reviscom1]

@Rafik

1) I didn't say that attitude was exclusive to Robespierre. And yes he totally repudiated the church, which was pretty strongly implied in what I said. I only phrased it like that to specify exactly why he repudiated the church. In spite of all that he did believe in a God, and it was a positive belief, not just a negative rejection of atheism.
2) I am aware of what atheists say are the psychological processes behind my instincts. I have thought about them and don't accept them.
3) There surely is an inevitability in Marx's projected destiny for the human race. Surely that is the point. Yes, looked at from up close there are agents, but looked at from a distance, well, that is exactly what they are - agents of greater historical forces. By the way I was not suggesting that the divine plan and Marxist destiny are necessarily one and the same - just pointing out the striking similarity. Nor am I suggesting that theism should form a part of Marxist thought - just that the 2 can be compatible.
4) The "disgusting" superstitions you refer to are again those of the High Church. as we have seen, one can entirely repudiate the church and still be a theist.
5) Yes, socialist revolutions build on rather than repudiate bourgeois revolutions I agree. But my point was that for bourgeois revolutions the church was a genuine threat - a bastion of entrenched privilege that disseminated pro-aristocratic propaganda that was firmly intertwined with the political institutions of the ancienne regime. For Socialist revolutionaries that threat does not exist, the church is not really a bastion of anything and it is a waste of energy to attack it when that energy could be better spent undermining Capitalism (of course in the States, where you are, this is less the case admittedly)
6) No I don't really think we should artificially mess with nature. The family, quite possibly, I would have to hear more on that.

[Rafiq]

You know this shit is so fucking stupid, so abominably stupid that I actually feel dumber from reading it. THIS Is how you fucking respond? THIS?


2) I am aware of what atheists say are the psychological processes behind my instincts. I have thought about them and don't accept them.

They aren't your "instincts", you fucking clown. THIS is how you respond to me, after I thoroughly address and destroy such a notion? "I thought about them and don't accept them".

That is because you are a reactionary ideologue and a philistine. Very well, I can't force you to actually think, no less think critically. So get the fuck out of here.


There surely is an inevitability in Marx's projected destiny for the human race. Surely that is the point. Yes, looked at from up close there are agents, but looked at from a distance, well, that is exactly what they are - agents of greater historical forces. By the way I was not suggesting that the divine plan and Marxist destiny are necessarily one and the same - just pointing out the striking similarity.

You know what is so fucking disgusting about this response? I can literally repeat myself and it will mean the same thing:

You have taken, like all other "Left" opportunists who like to identify with our traditions for the most perverse of reasons, you have taken it upon yourself to identify with what is abjectly a straw man argument derived from what is undoubtedly confusion. Not only is this the epitome of opportunism, it is the same kind of opportunism which forms the aesthetic basis of Fascism and petty bourgeois reaction in general with a "left facade".

The example that emanates from this statement is how "Stalinists" in Russia, will fully identify with the characterizations of Stalin put forward with both liberalism and typical Left-Wing anti-Stalinism, but proudly in a mode of identifying with 'this' Stalin. Thus, Stalin's chauvinism, sexual conservatism, antisemitism, renouncement of internationalism, 'disavowal of civil liberties' and the list goes on, are not simply attacks on him, but the basis of his exaltation by Russian reactionaries. This is true for every single kind of Fascism, this kind of pseudo-cynical identification with the "straw man".

In fact, there is no inevitability outside the active will of political agents. The atheism of Communism is simple: THERE IS NO big other, THERE IS NO guarantee, divine or otherwise, there is simply NOTHING but the community of believers. As for pretenses to the "human race", this is nothing more than silly idealist metaphysics - what 'non human' race is there that we juxtapose ourselves to in this regard? Of course, the difference between "god's divine plan" and the "communist destiny" is that the latter is not an inevitability one can hold on to as some kind of guarantee. Communism is the destruction of not simply organized religion, (which has already been overthrown) but superstitions of all and any kind. The human race does not collectively 'progress' towards anything that is perceivable by some external, neutral observer. The 'progress' of the human race only exists insofar as it is the object of perception by controversies and antagonisms that manifest themselves in present day society. So yes, everything IS relative to present day society, the point of Marxism is to recognize and accept this as we are living, human beings organized in present day capitalism - which entails a social antagonism.

We will scorch the Earth of such disgusting superstitions. We will storm the gates of heaven and we will defile all that is sacred for the reactionaries. No matter their self-proclaimed pseudo-theological preferences. WE Communists have exceeded the threshold of theology, WE ALONE are heirs to the legacy of the theological conclusion of history, which is atheism (and not the pseudo-atheism of Dawkins, Harris, etc. who have merely replaced the Christian god with a pagan one). Every socialist must also be an atheist, else he is an active ideologue of the class enemy. It is as simple as that. The only way I need to prove this to everyone here, is simply ask this gentlemen his position on a number of questions: The abolition of the family, human bio-genetic engineering, transforming natural processes mercilessly to our favor, giving birth to humans artificially, not only the destruction of hyper-sexuality but the triumph of real, genuine sexual liberation, and the list goes on. These will inevitably horrify you, and that is all the evidence we need that one cannot at the same time be a socialist while adhering to such silly superstitions.

Furthermore, I ridicule and attack such a STUPID fucking notion of "distance". I attack, I wipe my ass with your pretensions to being some omnipotent observer who can observe things at a "distance" in the first place. That is the point to begin with. What you perceive to be "looking at the bigger picture" of the process of revolution is in fact the most narrow minded philistinism and the most barbarous mindlessness, you are not in fact "looking at the bigger picture", you are articulating the overall appearance of what a revolution looks like from a thoroughly idealist, and superstitious mental context. This is what you fail to understand: revolutionary agents, throughout history, HAVE NEVER BEEN "bound" by the proximity of their actions AT THE EXPENSE of the 'greater historical picture', on the contrary, revolutionary agents ARE COMPLETELY and TOTALLY conscious of the entirety of the over-reaching historical context of their actions. There is a reason why Lenin said:

The Marxist doctrine is omnipotent because it is true. It is comprehensive and harmonious, and provides men with an integral world outlook irreconcilable with any form of superstition, reaction, or defense of bourgeois oppression. It is the legitimate successor to the best that man produced in the nineteenth century, as represented by German philosophy, English political economy and French socialism.

Political agents, the Communist party itself, is an agent of NOTHING MORE than the socially concision movement, it is self-sufficient unto itself, without any gods, without any forces of guarantee or inevitability, disciplined and cohesive in the spirit of historical consciousness and collective solidarity. Not only can you not be a Marxist and at the same time hold superstitions, you cannot be a socialist without being an atheist. Not only is atheism a necessary pre-requisite to socialism, Socialism and atheism are synonymous. There is no such thing as bourgeois-atheism - EVERY BOURGEOIS ATHEIST believes in some kind of force of guarantee, a 'big other', whether (pseudo) 'evolution' or some stupid, metaphysical over-reaching notion of 'the universe' and the list goes on. It is for this reason that Marx said:

Communism begins from the outset (Owen) with atheism; but atheism is at first far from being communism; indeed, that atheism is still mostly an abstraction.

The philanthropy of atheism is therefore at first only philosophical, abstract philanthropy, and that of communism is at once real and directly bent on action.

What does Marx mean here? He means the exact same thing as Engels when he recalled that the English workers, through practice, had already done away with all gods: Marx is saying that Communism is atheism in practice, that atheism without Communism is merely an abstraction of the deep-seated superstitions that are synonymous with bourgeois thought.


Nor am I suggesting that theism should form a part of Marxist thought - just that the 2 can be compatible.

No, you disgusting reactionary, your filthy, corrupt and degenerate superstitions are not and never will be compatible with Marxism. Saying that "Marxism and theism" are compatible is all the fucking proof we need that your notion of Marxism is total fucking bullshit, wrought not from a thorough investigation of the works of actual Marxists or the contents of our tradition itself, but from what the 'public eye', i.e. from how conventional thought and political taxonomy characterizes Marxism - which is nothing more than a straw fucking man. No, Marxism and theism are absolutely not compatible, not in any meaningful sense, because for Marxism, no domain is sacred. The fact that you claim that "I don't think we should artificially mess with nature" IS THE ONLY FUCKING PROOF we need of that, because the same exact argument could be made for messing with the "natural" social order. Now how the fuck do you reconcile that, while retaining an iota of consistency? How is "nature" something we shouldn't "artificially" mess with, but Communism is? And what you fail to understand, most laughably, is the fact that the "messing with nature" was the logical, and natural conclusion of the October revolution, in thought. Any fucking glimpse of Soviet architecture, culture, and art before Stalinism allows one to see that yes, "messing with nature" was not only aimed at, it was the spiritual substance of Communism at the time. The same kind of Fordism that was an affront to the reactionary romantics in the west, with its mechanical movement, etc. - was taken to be the ultimate kind of freedom for Soviet thinkers and cultural works.

I mean, what is so fucking stupid here is that not only is Marxism and theism incompatible, theism and HEGELIANISM are largely incompatible really. Your "flirtations" with what you conceive as Marxism is inherently Fascistic (Just as those of the KPRF), because what you are flirting with is the outward, aesthetic appearance of Marxism, not Marxism as such. I mean, THE underlying, one of THE distinguishing characteristics of Marxism: Historical materialism, is ABSOLUTELY violently opposed to all forms of religion. I don't know what the fuck you are smoking of you think you can be a Marxist without also being a materialist as well. But what can I say? These postmodern internet kids think they can mix and match any and all beliefs that they want - when the reality is that they are mixing and matching aesthetics, the underlying ideological substrate which is the basis of these are thoroughly grounded in quite less 'creative' cliche's and ideological banalities.


4) The "disgusting" superstitions you refer to are again those of the High Church. as we have seen, one can entirely repudiate the church and still be a theist.

No, they are the superstitions associated with all religious belief, nay, not only religious belief, but all 'spiritual' belief as well. The person who calls themselves a "pagan", they are disgusting reactionaries who adhere to superstition. Do you even FUCKING know the definition of superstition? It is belief without providing the means to know them, it is righteous insistence on mystery, it is your "instinct" that you cannot explain scientifically or even rationally, it is to believe without being consciously aware of the actual basis of your belief. Superstition is therefore an insistence on the unknowable, as indefinitely unknowable, superstition is the conscious manifestation of IDEOLOGY. Not only can you repudiate the church and still be superstitious, bourgeois ideology is, in its core, anti-church in nature. The church as an institution is sustained for the 'ragged masses', the actual bourgeoisie have nothing to do with it. And yet they are still superstitious, so what exactly is your point? I already thoroughly fucking went over this, and what did reviscom do? He gave us this piss poor half assed response. No, I'm going to chase you to the ends of this fucking forum, so long as you tout such disgusting superstitions, reviscom, be assured.


For Socialist revolutionaries that threat does not exist, the church is not really a bastion of anything and it is a waste of energy to attack it when that energy could be better spent undermining Capitalism

The stupidity of this statement lies in the fact that it fails to critically assess the differences in the role of the church in capitalism, and the role of the church in pre-modern (ancien regime) contexts. What you fail to understand is that Communists will destroy churches not because AS AN INSTITUTION churches are relevant, but because they encapsulate and embody the superstition that reproduces the conditions of capitalism. We will target churches, primarily, because they are sources of fraud, tax evasion, and schoolhouses of reaction - furthermore, they have assumed a new role as degenerate bastions of political reaction in many parts of the world. But more specifically, and more importantly, we will crush, throw to the wind, and absolutely obliterate ALL KINDS OF SUPERSTITION, EQUALLY. We will viciously tear the throat out of not only the Vatican, but the Dawkins', the new age scum, and the list goes on. The means by which we will do this is through the ideological power of Communism, we will eradicate all superstitions equally. What makes churches significant to this end, is that they are organized and institutional - they have a monopoly on education in many places, as well as other services. That is why they, specifically, are a threat.

What you fail to understand is why churches are sustained in bourgeois society. The bourgeoisie opposed the church as an institution because they STRUCTURALLY were the mouthpieces of the ancien regime. The intricacies of superstition and reaction associated with churches, were not only not abolished by bourgeois revolutions, they were reinforced and sustained, as I claimed. In fact today more than ever churches in western countries are declining in favor of new kinds of superstition, new age bullshit, eastern spiritualism, and "da nature" we shouldn't be messing with. Communism, should it triumph, will eradicate every and all kinds of superstition from the face of the Earth. The chief means is through atheism in practice. We will defile all that is sacred, all that is holy for the religious. We will conquer and bring into our control 'nature', we will re-organize society so that there is no room for the 'soul' or, in popular terms today, the 'genetic constitution' of the individual. All gods, including mother Gaia, will be mercilessly crushed by the fist of the exploited and damned world wide. And as a pre-requisite for their emancipation, they will do away and cast aside all of their superstitions.

We forgive them for their superstition. We despise the reviscom's of the world, the ACTIVE IDEOLOGUES who perpetuate their ignorance and superstition.


6) No I don't really think we should artificially mess with nature.

Of course you don't, because being a reactionary, you prefer "nature" to be some divine mystery that we shouldn't touch or go near. I promise you that come any Communist revolution, we will not only "mess" with nature, we will destroy nature, as we do all holy places.

Might I ask, why SHOULDN'T we "artificially" mess with nature? Why not? You will say "because we will fuck something up and go wrong". THAT IS superstition. That is the very definition of superstition! That we cannot "know" and practically use that knowledge for manipulating such processes, and so on. In truth, it is because nature is the last refuge of the bourgeoisie, it is the sacred domain that which one projects their spiritual attachment to the existing order upon. It is the retreat from all that is alien and all that reminds people of their exploitation and misery. True faith, is faith in overcoming this alienation in every single domain, so that concrete, asphalt, so that plastic and silicon are no longer associated with cheap artifice, but the highest spiritual freedom and collective solidarity, once under the control of the proletarian dictatorship. In the Soviet Union even under Stalinism, ordinary people felt pride in their tractors and their industrial 'mordor'.

You are not a socialist, none the less a fucking MARXIST if you shed tears for mother gaia. Truly. You are not serious about your self-proclaimed political views if you still hold on to some domain of the sacred. You are not. Because when push comes to shove, to see your whole fucking world shatter to pieces, to see all that is sacred explode, how will you react? You will join the reaction. So go. Renounce your superstition, or leave. Communism is historical self-consciousness. It is putting that which is otherwise autonomous, 'organic' and 'natural' under the conscious control of the broad masses, scientifically. Communism is nothing more than that. And there is no room for any of your gods here.

[Lord Testicles]

Stop flaming people right now Rafiq.

[reviscom1]

Stop flaming people right now Rafiq.

Thanks, man, but I quite enjoyed being on the receiving end of some truly Robespierrian invective.

As long as I don't end up lying in a ditch half eaten by wolves it's all good ;)