Is this site ever coming back?

[willowtooth]

I was just searching though some archives and found this picture http://archive.fo/BoVwK

look how active this site once was, and that was just a random day.... and people used to complain of low activity even back then :rolleyes:

[Bea Arthur]

No, the liberal admins killed it. Death by purge. Good riddance. All activity has shifted to reddit and Facebook.

[willowtooth]

No, the liberal admins killed it. Death by purge. Good riddance. All activity has shifted to reddit and Facebook.
Reddit huh? Where r/communism or r/socialism?

[Full Metal Bolshevik]

Reddit is kinda shit, I don't even use Facebook.

[Ale Brider]

Reddit is kind of messed up. r/communism and r/socialism are especially shitty (r/socialism right now is a perfect example of how most reddit communists are just very angry SocDems). r/communists and r/leftcommunism are better, but (as you can expect) r/leftcommunism is mostly for leftcoms. Most facebook groups (that I know of) are meh.

[John Nada]

Reddit huh? Where r/communism or r/socialism?www.reddit.com/r/communism www.reddit.com/r/socialism www.reddit.com/r/anarchism. I found out about them from cyu's sig. Lurk but don't have an account. r/communism is a bunch of "actually existing socialism" Brezhnevites(in spite of the Five Heads MLM picture), and r/socialism social democrats.

The r/communism and r/socialism mods are also very purge-happy. For example, you get restricted/banned here for supporting Juche/Thirdworldism, but you basically get banned from r/communism for not supporting Juche/Thirdworldism, and r/socialism had an infamous anti-ableist purge. But somehow they're growing and way more active than Revleft. I guess getting banned there would be more like if you got banned from one forum here, but could still post in the groups/other forums.

Funny thing is, I think even some Revleft mods defected Reddit and Facebook.:lol: Also whenever Revleft gets brought up on Reddit or Facebook, everyone's like "nah, that's wack".

[GiantMonkeyMan]

I don't really 'get' the reddit format, if you know what I mean. It just feels disorganised and posts seem to get swallowed up.

This forum really did suffer from purge-happy administrators who banned some members on spurious grounds and that sort of atmosphere also contributed to a lot of members just no longer feeling like the forum was worth it, myself included for more than a few months. However, the unfortunate fact is that we're in a low period of struggle and a low period for the left, and a rise of the right. I joined this forum some time after the financial crash where left wing ideas were making a comeback of sorts. There isn't a huge active membership because a lot of the shit going on in the world is just depressing with very little organised fight back of worth. So it's definitely a combination of things really.

Edit: had a look at r/communism. There's some good stuff on there but I'm pretty sure I'd get banned eventually for my thoughts on Stalinism.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I'm sure there are some factors outside of our control. I think a lot of this kind of discussion has just moved to Facebook for better or worse now that you can select privacy settings to minimize right-wing relatives jumping into your political posts - lol.

But there are other subjective things that can be done. This site has always had ups and downs and I don't think it was ever all that friendly or welcoming to new people (aside from the efforts of a few people). There was also always a lot of turnover, but I think some real-life cliques who posted here helped keep more consistency.

I never really understood the level of forum drama here, but I don't think it's unusual for forums like this. The "split" sites also seem to have very little activity these days, so while the drama caused damage, I think there are also broader trends that led to the current landscape.

I think the site can regain some more activity, but I think we have a responsibility to try and help with the subjective part by trying to be more welcoming, trying to keep debates reasonable so new posters will be less intimidated (I know, it's hard not to get caught up sometimes). I also think we should post about more general topical discussions. Chris posts interesting topics, and I think if we opened more treads about some of these things but just wrote our own post of thoughts or questions it might encourage more participation from newer folks.

And this goes for the left in general. The internet can be a hostile place, a defensive left can be even more hostile. It's a bad combo that I think we should try and counteract when possible.

I've always thought we should work to be more open and welcoming, but different people have different uses for a site like this: left-gossip, theory discussion, promotion of a view, etc.

For me, sites like this helped me to develop and challenge my political views as a new radical


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Fellow_Human]

Reddit huh? Where r/communism or r/socialism?

Yeah, if you feel like hanging out in place full of tankies. Same for any of the other major "leftist" subreddits, /r/DebateCommunism, /r/FULLCOMMUNISM, r/communism101, /r/Socialism_101. Anyone else who decides to resort to the right-wing neckbeard cesspool that is Reddit will be better served by /r/Marxism_101, /r/Ultraleft, /r/Anarchy101, and /r/COMPLETEANARCHY.

[TomLeftist]

Yeah, I used to enjoy Facebook and other social networks websites. But I got tired of the excess of social-democracy ideology of most leftists of Facebook


No, the liberal admins killed it. Death by purge. Good riddance. All activity has shifted to reddit and Facebook.

[TomLeftist]

You are right, also on top of what you said. There is a new sort of discussion forum system in the internet, and that is the comments sections of many alternative news websites, like truthdig, wsws.org and others who have added a comments section at the end of each news and article. Where leftists can write their comments and debate with other people. But I've noticed that there is now an excess of censorship, an excess of controlling freedom of speech, freedom of thought. Specially in the news site http://www.wsws.org/. In that website David North one of the main owners and administrators of that news site is aksing people to donate money to that website. But at the same time that website is not too democratic, too tolerant, to the different tendencies of leftists activists and to their own perspective and own personal tendency.

So how can people be motivated to donate money to a website that bans your own writings.


https://youtu.be/ZcNq1HihABY
David North one of the administrators of Wsws wants people to donate money to their website. But I have little motivation to donate money to The World Socialist Website for their excess of sectarianism and anti-freedom of speech policies


I'm sure there are some factors outside of our control. I think a lot of this kind of discussion has just moved to Facebook for better or worse now that you can select privacy settings to minimize right-wing relatives jumping into your political posts - lol.

But there are other subjective things that can be done. This site has always had ups and downs and I don't think it was ever all that friendly or welcoming to new people (aside from the efforts of a few people). There was also always a lot of turnover, but I think some real-life cliques who posted here helped keep more consistency.

I never really understood the level of forum drama here, but I don't think it's unusual for forums like this. The "split" sites also seem to have very little activity these days, so while the drama caused damage, I think there are also broader trends that led to the current landscape.

I think the site can regain some more activity, but I think we have a responsibility to try and help with the subjective part by trying to be more welcoming, trying to keep debates reasonable so new posters will be less intimidated (I know, it's hard not to get caught up sometimes). I also think we should post about more general topical discussions. Chris posts interesting topics, and I think if we opened more treads about some of these things but just wrote our own post of thoughts or questions it might encourage more participation from newer folks.

And this goes for the left in general. The internet can be a hostile place, a defensive left can be even more hostile. It's a bad combo that I think we should try and counteract when possible.

I've always thought we should work to be more open and welcoming, but different people have different uses for a site like this: left-gossip, theory discussion, promotion of a view, etc.

For me, sites like this helped me to develop and challenge my political views as a new radical


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TomLeftist]

Jimmy: You are right. In fact I think that one of the main causes of why the marxist left does not grow in numbers of their members, specially in these times of increased poverty and increased pain, where most americans are taxked to death, billed to death and over-worked to death, in this neoliberalism privatization phase of capitalism, where already most americans should've been 100% converted to marxism and joining in masses in ultra-leftist marxist organizations is that is not only that the marxist leftist parties have less money and less economic power in order to get more people to fall in love with the ideas of marxism. But another cause is that many marxist radical ultra-leftist parties need to work a lot more on the social skills, propaganda marketing skills, social communication with the masses, in order for marxists to look friendlier, more loving and more willing to help people who are new to marxism, to radical ultra-leftist political theory. In fact i read an article some years ago, claiming that the left needs to hire George Clooney in order for the left to rise in popularity and in members



I'm sure there are some factors outside of our control. I think a lot of this kind of discussion has just moved to Facebook for better or worse now that you can select privacy settings to minimize right-wing relatives jumping into your political posts - lol.

But there are other subjective things that can be done. This site has always had ups and downs and I don't think it was ever all that friendly or welcoming to new people (aside from the efforts of a few people). There was also always a lot of turnover, but I think some real-life cliques who posted here helped keep more consistency.

I never really understood the level of forum drama here, but I don't think it's unusual for forums like this. The "split" sites also seem to have very little activity these days, so while the drama caused damage, I think there are also broader trends that led to the current landscape.

I think the site can regain some more activity, but I think we have a responsibility to try and help with the subjective part by trying to be more welcoming, trying to keep debates reasonable so new posters will be less intimidated (I know, it's hard not to get caught up sometimes). I also think we should post about more general topical discussions. Chris posts interesting topics, and I think if we opened more treads about some of these things but just wrote our own post of thoughts or questions it might encourage more participation from newer folks.

And this goes for the left in general. The internet can be a hostile place, a defensive left can be even more hostile. It's a bad combo that I think we should try and counteract when possible.

I've always thought we should work to be more open and welcoming, but different people have different uses for a site like this: left-gossip, theory discussion, promotion of a view, etc.

For me, sites like this helped me to develop and challenge my political views as a new radical


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bea Arthur]

I'm sure there are some factors outside of our control. I think a lot of this kind of discussion has just moved to Facebook for better or worse now that you can select privacy settings to minimize right-wing relatives jumping into your political posts - lol.

But there are other subjective things that can be done. This site has always had ups and downs and I don't think it was ever all that friendly or welcoming to new people (aside from the efforts of a few people). There was also always a lot of turnover, but I think some real-life cliques who posted here helped keep more consistency.

I never really understood the level of forum drama here, but I don't think it's unusual for forums like this. The "split" sites also seem to have very little activity these days, so while the drama caused damage, I think there are also broader trends that led to the current landscape.

I think the site can regain some more activity, but I think we have a responsibility to try and help with the subjective part by trying to be more welcoming, trying to keep debates reasonable so new posters will be less intimidated (I know, it's hard not to get caught up sometimes). I also think we should post about more general topical discussions. Chris posts interesting topics, and I think if we opened more treads about some of these things but just wrote our own post of thoughts or questions it might encourage more participation from newer folks.

And this goes for the left in general. The internet can be a hostile place, a defensive left can be even more hostile. It's a bad combo that I think we should try and counteract when possible.

I've always thought we should work to be more open and welcoming, but different people have different uses for a site like this: left-gossip, theory discussion, promotion of a view, etc.

For me, sites like this helped me to develop and challenge my political views as a new radical


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This post conveniently exonerates all the admins and mods from transforming the site into a ghost town by banning or driving away effectively all non-mod and non-admin long-time users of the site. Only a few of the admins were the forces behind the constant purges, but the rest should have to answer for going with the flow. Like you, Jimmie. Your post demonstrates the same ostrich-like head-in-the-sand approach to dealing with administrative issues that killed the forum. If the issue were just the decreasing popularity of message boards in general, how come other forums I frequent have seen no such downturn, and in fact have even seen some growth? Rebuilding this community is impossible, as there are already significantly active alternatives around that aren't run like the Soviet Union circa 1936. The best that can really be hoped for is that the parties responsible for revleft's death take some time to reflect on their actions and how they might have done things differently. Your explanation for how things went terribly wrong demonstrates that you have not yet begun that process in any significant way.

[ckaihatsu]

This post conveniently exonerates all the admins and mods from transforming the site into a ghost town by banning or driving away effectively all non-mod and non-admin long-time users of the site. Only a few of the admins were the forces behind the constant purges, but the rest should have to answer for going with the flow. Like you, Jimmie. Your post demonstrates the same ostrich-like head-in-the-sand approach to dealing with administrative issues


There *are no* 'administrative issues' -- your contriving of such is equivalent to internal historical revisionism.

The ban regarded users who equated an anti-Assad stance (Western-parallel, btw) as being 'anti-imperialism' -- an incorrect position since it plays *into* Western imperialism in Syria and equates reactionary-opposition fundamentalist Islamic groups like ISIS to a purported but incorrect 'anti-imperialism'. (There would be no historical-progressive outcome to a scenario in which such religious-sectarian reactionary groups defeated the imperialists, to run the Middle East under fundamentalist Sharia law.)





Policy on endorsement of Daesh, aka the Islamic State, ISIS, ISIL etc

This announcement is to clarify the Revleft.com policy of no platform for fascism, which includes a strict prohibition of any form of expressed support for or endorsement of the fascist terrorist organization Daesh, aka the Islamic State, ISIS, ISIL etc on our forums.

Any such sentiment expressed on RevLeft, (whether it be from an individual or that expressed by any group), be it an outright endorsement of Daesh ideology or the slightest apologism for the organizations actions for any reason, (including 'anti-imperialism'), will lead to an instant and permanent banning of the user in question regardless of their stated political ideology or motives.



No Pasaran!




http://www.revleft.com/vb/threads/194996-Policy-on-endorsement-of-Daesh-aka-the-Islamic-State-ISIS-ISIL-etc?p=2864174#post2864174


---





that killed the forum. If the issue were just the decreasing popularity of message boards in general, how come other forums I frequent have seen no such downturn, and in fact have even seen some growth? Rebuilding this community is impossible, as there are already significantly active alternatives around that aren't run like the Soviet Union circa 1936. The best that can really be hoped for is that the parties responsible for revleft's death take some time to reflect on their actions and how they might have done things differently. Your explanation for how things went terribly wrong demonstrates that you have not yet begun that process in any significant way.


All *you're* concerned with is that there be a forum bird-bath existing for people to splash-around-in, to spew whatever revolutionary-sounding comments they want to, without actually getting into what revolution is and could *be-like* in the present-day real-world context.

The ban was correct because the board, through lengthy discussions here, found the 'anti-imps' (as just described) to be *incorrect* and *inappropriate* to a genuinely revolutionary stance. Assad's Syria is *not* imperialist, and has actually been *under attack* from the West, and therefore deserving of mass defense and international solidarity, until the people of Syria can address Assad's actions from a position of internal self-determination (national-liberation).

[Bea Arthur]

Ckaihatsu, you're an idiot who spams a dead forum, and should seriously consider getting a life.

[Bea Arthur]

And, no all the long time users who were banned were not banned for the admin teams pretext to drive the Sparts away. TAT, Mariel, Skinz, among many many others were banned because the admin team have serious issues. At least in that regard, you fit right in with them.

[Jimmie Higgins]

This post conveniently exonerates all the admins and mods from transforming the site into a ghost town by banning or driving away effectively all non-mod and non-admin long-time users of the site. Only a few of the admins were the forces behind the constant purges, but the rest should have to answer for going with the flow. Like you, Jimmie. Your post demonstrates the same ostrich-like head-in-the-sand approach to dealing with administrative issues that killed the forum. If the issue were just the decreasing popularity of message boards in general, how come other forums I frequent have seen no such downturn, and in fact have even seen some growth? Rebuilding this community is impossible, as there are already significantly active alternatives around that aren't run like the Soviet Union circa 1936. The best that can really be hoped for is that the parties responsible for revleft's death take some time to reflect on their actions and how they might have done things differently. Your explanation for how things went terribly wrong demonstrates that you have not yet begun that process in any significant way.

My point with my post was not to absolve mods from anything, but to try and look at where things are now and what might help.

Why did you act so defensively to this post? As far as your accusations, I wasn't even visiting this site for most of this drama, so be specific. What are these healthy sites you speak of? What do they do that can be learned from... how can that be applied here? How did past bans cause no new people to participate? That would be the constructive way to discuss.

To my points in the previous point... of course who's modding now? I don't see much activity by admins in the last two months... so according to your argument, we should be dealing with a flood of new people. Why don't new posters stick around?

I haven't posted here in years... came back and there are only a few regular posters... some with really shitty attitudes that in my view don't help create a healthy or inviting atmosphere much at all.

When the site was more active I constantly had people asking to ban others. Aside from obvious fash I was against it. And I got attacked for that too. My notifications at that time were just full of requests and flagged users.

I generally tried to mod unofficially... like ask someone nicely to behave or take it down a notch. When I kindly asked a former member who has been accused of harassment to be nicer to someone in a thread, I was attacked for heavy-handed modding (despite making no official warning or threat of admin action) and then he demanded that I never post in the same thread as him! So "all-powerful" admin is a nice fantasy when you're not a mod, but I have not experienced this when I became a mod.

I have seen mods AND regular posters call for banning over political disagreements and that's unfortunately been the case as long as I have posted here. In fact, there was a Democratic mod system at one point and it just led to more purges.

And yes, I did and do try and steer clear of these internal-politics because it's mostly BS. This is a freaking discussion site but folks act like it's life or death and mods are totalitarians or that some internet debate will make or break the revolution or something. Sure we can all get heated in a discussion, but we can leave it there if we have some perspective.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jimmie Higgins]

Ckaihatsu, you're an idiot who spams a dead forum, and should seriously consider getting a life.

Lol, yeah real welcoming.

Edit: and you're seriously defending TAT? That's the ass who was the biggest totalitarian and abuser on the site and who had more slack than any other member for bad behavior. Even before they were accused of anything, they were one of the few truly awful people on the site... a gas-lighter and manipulative bully.

This is the poster who made a stink about how me asking him to be more polite to another member screamed about how I was oppressing him and then cried to the admins who asked me not to participate in threads he was in.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bea Arthur]

No, you're not going to have a flood of new people in here because there is no longer a community here. The one that existed was built up over a lengthy period when revleft was the only game in town, and it was destroyed by abusive administration over a period of the past couple years. It is dead, but if by some miracle it ever came back, the usual suspects remain here to engage in the same behavior, so we should be thankful that's it's not even remotely a possibility.

Also, learn to read more carefully. I was not defending TAT. I was pointing out his ban among many others have nothing whatsoever to do with this bizarre ckhaitsu fellow's imaginary visions about the only people purged out being a few fringe trotskyites.

[Jimmie Higgins]

TAT, Mariel, Skinz, among many many others were banned because the admin team have serious issues. At least in that regard, you fit right in with them.

Sorry if I misread the above. So why was TAT banned due to the serious issues of admins... the same who allowed him to return and gave him a lot of the benefit of a doubt?

More importantly, what do you think would help improve the site going forward? Like I said, I think being more welcoming, resisting the status-quo of internet blame-culture, would be a subjective way to help (this goes for admins too... not banning people except for unambiguous circumstances, for example)?

That would be a more constructive way to have this discussion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bea Arthur]

Jimmie, it is not possible to have a constructive discussion about how to improve the site moving forward if you have no clarity on what destroyed it. The reason TAT, Mariel, Vladimir Innit, Skinz, and others were banned was actually never revealed, at least not on any part of the forum I can see. It was the petty online equivalent of a classic night-time disappearance you'd have seen in the USSR in the 1930s. If I were given free rein to do as I pleased in order to improve revleft, my first act would be to discharge the entire team of administrators and moderators and solicit the ideas of the one or two remaining long-time users on what sort of system of accountability and transparency they would be interested in seeing.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

Ckaihatsu, you're an idiot who spams a dead forum, and should seriously consider getting a life.
The irony of this post......

[ckaihatsu]

Ckaihatsu, you're an idiot who spams a dead forum, and should seriously consider getting a life.


Got one, thanks.





And, no all the long time users who were banned were not banned for the admin teams pretext to drive the Sparts away. TAT, Mariel, Skinz, among many many others were banned because the admin team have serious issues. At least in that regard, you fit right in with them.


'Pretext' -- ?

You're sidestepping the actual *political issue* at stake here (at my previous post). I don't know what your claimed 'other issues' are -- you may want to elaborate.





[H]is ban among many others have nothing whatsoever to do with this bizarre ckhaitsu fellow's imaginary visions about the only people purged out being a few fringe trotskyites.


You're being unclear and possibly purposely *ambiguous* here by conflating the real issue of a counter-revolutionary, fake 'anti-imperialism' with (some) of those people's revolutionary tendencies ('Trots', like the Sparts).

Are you our 'community advisor' now -- ?? (Yeesh.)

[Bea Arthur]

Ckaihatsu. It seems we're not speaking the same language or even living on the same planet. You refer to a policy that resulted in the banning of about 6 or 7 people, and claim that this is what I am referring to in mentioning the administrative abuses that have resulted in many dozens of long-time users being banned or leaving voluntarily. I mentioned a handful of them just from a single round of purging that occurred just last year, but there are many other names I could mention. Not that this will stop you from repeating the same utterly irrelevant nonsense.

And no, I don't think you do get how utterly whacko your participation on this forum is. Somebody will make a post about a specific issue, like asking what small businesses are. Then you proceed over the next six months to spam the thread with, at best, tangentially related events and pieces that might reference "small business owners" in passing. Gosh, I wonder why only about 1% of your spam gets a response? It's like you have some unstated compulsion to try to make this forum seem more active than it really is, but all you're really doing is drowning out what little meaningful conversation that remains from newbiews and others who don't know better, beneath piles and piles of spammy garbage. By all means, keep doing it. It's not surprising that you're a moderator, because it's the kind of unintentionally destructive and harmful behavior that manifests itself in other ways, like driving out long-time users through power-tripping purges.

Giant Monkey Man, I have a total of 159 posts on this forum over a period of four years. Do the math on that one, and tell me what it averages out to in number of posts per day. Then look at the number of utterly inane and off-topic things Ckhaihatsu plasters all over the forum. If you think I "spam" anywhere near on the order of CKaihatsu, you need to consult an online dictionary about what the term means. Then when you're done, perhaps you can learn to use facebook or reddit and get back into communities where there remains some actual political discussion. Instead of back-biting among two bitter in-denial moderators, which is what fittingly characterizes the end-point of revleft's life span.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

I didn't think your post was spam. I found it ironic that you felt the need to tell someone to get a life for spending their time on a dead forum by posting on a dead forum. But whatever, you do you.

[Bea Arthur]

I didn't think your post was spam. I found it ironic that you felt the need to tell someone to get a life for spending their time on a dead forum by posting on a dead forum. But whatever, you do you.

I have spent probably a combined one hour on this forum the past year. It appears, from the timestamps of C's posts just from today, that he spent at least six hours here the past twenty four hours. Think about that.

[ckaihatsu]

Ckaihatsu. It seems we're not speaking the same language or even living on the same planet. You refer to a policy that resulted in the banning of about 6 or 7 people, and claim that this is what I am referring to in mentioning the administrative abuses that have resulted in many dozens of long-time users being banned or leaving voluntarily. I mentioned a handful of them just from a single round of purging that occurred just last year, but there are many other names I could mention. Not that this will stop you from repeating the same utterly irrelevant nonsense.


It's not irrelevant -- I was asking for clarification on this, and you've provided your own perspective on it.





And no, I don't think you do get how utterly whacko your participation on this forum is. Somebody will make a post about a specific issue, like asking what small businesses are. Then you proceed over the next six months to spam the thread with, at best, tangentially related events and pieces that might reference "small business owners" in passing.


This is just untrue -- you're saying I'm not posting anything of substance, when in fact I *do* reference the actual everyday issues at-hand. (There's a *current* thread on the topic of business formulations that's a good counter-example here.)


What is a small business?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/threads/196867-What-is-a-small-business


---





Gosh, I wonder why only about 1% of your spam gets a response?


'Spam' -- ? That's unjustifiable, and please stop calling my posts / participation 'spam'.





It's like you have some unstated compulsion to try to make this forum seem more active than it really is, but all you're really doing is drowning out what little meaningful conversation that remains from newbiews and others who don't know better, beneath piles and piles of spammy garbage. By all means, keep doing it. It's not surprising that you're a moderator, because it's the kind of unintentionally destructive and harmful behavior that manifests itself in other ways, like driving out long-time users through power-tripping purges.


You're contending 'power-tripping purges', but all you have is your own one-sided narrative on it -- if you want more people to know about this practice you need to be more like a journalist, and try to find out more of the details so that your contention is somewhat corroborated. You're returning after a self-admitted *year* away, and you're immediately acting like a self-appointed authoritarian.

You're also making it sound as though posting *news articles* is 'destructive' -- actually it's *constructive* because we all need to know about what's going on in the world.





Giant Monkey Man, I have a total of 159 posts on this forum over a period of four years. Do the math on that one, and tell me what it averages out to in number of posts per day. Then look at the number of utterly inane and off-topic things Ckhaihatsu plasters all over the forum. If you think I "spam" anywhere near on the order of CKaihatsu, you need to consult an online dictionary about what the term means. Then when you're done, perhaps you can learn to use facebook or reddit and get back into communities where there remains some actual political discussion. Instead of back-biting among two bitter in-denial moderators, which is what fittingly characterizes the end-point of revleft's life span.


'Spam' is a mischaracterization -- and, at some point, there has to be *clarity* about what the revolutionary position and purpose is. Endless discussion, as on the topic of Syria, just winds up looking confused on the part of many, if no politically-appropriate reasoned *conclusions* are reached along the way.

Keep up the character assassination -- you're providing an example of what that playground-politics tactic looks like.





I have spent probably a combined one hour on this forum the past year. It appears, from the timestamps of C's posts just from today, that he spent at least six hours here the past twenty four hours. Think about that.


This isn't Opposite Day -- those who are able to be political on a regular basis, like myself, are a *resource*, and not a *detriment*, as you're accusing here.

Also, please learn what 'multitasking' is.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Jimmie, it is not possible to have a constructive discussion about how to improve the site moving forward if you have no clarity on what destroyed it. The reason TAT, Mariel, Vladimir Innit, Skinz, and others were banned was actually never revealed, at least not on any part of the forum I can see. It was the petty online equivalent of a classic night-time disappearance you'd have seen in the USSR in the 1930s. If I were given free rein to do as I pleased in order to improve revleft, my first act would be to discharge the entire team of administrators and moderators and solicit the ideas of the one or two remaining long-time users on what sort of system of accountability and transparency they would be interested in seeing.

1. The online equivalent of bans... is being banned from a voluntary social club. Frankly it's amazingly insensitive and out-of-touch to compare that to people being "disappeared" by a totalitarian state. "Unfriending" someone on Facebook (for fair or petty reasons) is not similar to murdering them. It's a ridiculous argument and a prime example of some of the absurd inward-facing arguments that have gone on in this forum. This is why I have generally tried to avoid similar useless squabbles in the past.

Repeat this mantra: it's just an online forum, it is only as useful as far as it can foster useful discussion.

2. I am not defending banning (except in extreme cases like TAT... who was given multiple second chances and much more leeway than probably any other user/mod/admin on this site). TAT was the poster-child of bad modding: petty, arbitrary, vengeful, manipulative. (I wasn't here when the others you mentioned were banned so I can't speak to that-Mariel seemed genuine even if we disagreed on things, so I'm sad to hear that)

my argument is that some bans does not explain the state of the site right now (when there were much larger bans or site-squabbles in the past). At least two other sites I used to post on a few years ago are deader than this site... dozens of active users from this site I knew were not banned but are not here... some of them mods. People I know IRL left because they got busy with other things in life or got tired of the silly squabbles and political faction bs.

I think there are larger forum-use trends generally that have moved a lot of activity to Facebook and other non-forum social media. This does not mean that bad behavior by mods or users didn't have an effect---just not a decisive one. There were much bigger bans and squabbles in the past--including under the more democratic mod system (the commie club or whatever it was called - which had a standing Ban/restrict thread).

Again this is not to say that on the subjective level, a bad atmosphere on the site (from bad modding or bad behavior from other users) didn't contribute. But solely blaming the actions of admins (when bans, petty or faction squabbles etc existed the entire time the site!) is not actually critique - it's just finger-pointing. It actually stops attempts to see what might be done to change the subjective situation... which brings me to...

3. "If you had it your way"... you'd basically re-create a mod system, just with you in charge of picking mods! You said you'd pick a few active posters and try and figure out ways to manage the site with accountability! What do you think the mods/admins did? There were many different systems and policies over the years... people trying different methods etc.

If I had it my way I think we'd need to change the structure of the site. We'd need to be more open and de-politicize/de-personalize any necessary mod tasks.

My preference would be a 3-section site: restricted, left, and revolutionary.

Restricted would be more or less the same.

The Left section would be the main part of the board and the main entry for all new users. Anyone left of center could participate and there wouldn't be a stigma to be in there. Nazis could be banned, open right-wingers restricted, and this would help eliminate the crypto-conservative/liberal/reformist witch-hunting mentality that sometimes happened. If a new leftie with liberal baggage came to the site they would not have to fear "punishment" via restriction.

The Revolutionary section would be like a commie club but focused on discussion. People could be voted in after 50 posts or whatnot based on simple standards. Then maybe they could vote on a mod team to do basic things like deleting spam and restricting right-wingers.

I think this might help in allowing new people to grow and make political argument mistakes without punishment, eliminate the heavy internal focus of the old CC. Allow established members to choose to debate reformists in the Left section or avoid them by focusing their political discussion in the Revolution part of the site.

Idk, it wouldn't work now at current levels of participation... and it might have just reproduced the problems of the old commie club attempt. But I think trying to address over-internalizing on the site, witch-hunt mentalities by mods and members, over-scrutiny of users who might just be novices to the left, and instead help promote an atmosphere where good political discussion is rewarded rather than a focus on looking for transgressions that need to be restricted, penalized, banned.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bea Arthur]

LOL. You two mods can keep your heads in the sand. To the OP who asked the question, the last two posts in this thread have given you your answer. I'm out.

[ckaihatsu]

1. The online equivalent of bans... is being banned from a voluntary social club. Frankly it's amazingly insensitive and out-of-touch to compare that to people being "disappeared" by a totalitarian state. "Unfriending" someone on Facebook (for fair or petty reasons) is not similar to murdering them. It's a ridiculous argument and a prime example of some of the absurd inward-facing arguments that have gone on in this forum. This is why I have generally tried to avoid similar useless squabbles in the past.

Repeat this mantra: it's just an online forum, it is only as useful as far as it can foster useful discussion.

2. I am not defending banning (except in extreme cases like TAT... who was given multiple second chances and much more leeway than probably any other user/mod/admin on this site). TAT was the poster-child of bad modding: petty, arbitrary, vengeful, manipulative. (I wasn't here when the others you mentioned were banned so I can't speak to that-Mariel seemed genuine even if we disagreed on things, so I'm sad to hear that)

my argument is that some bans does not explain the state of the site right now (when there were much larger bans or site-squabbles in the past). At least two other sites I used to post on a few years ago are deader than this site... dozens of active users from this site I knew were not banned but are not here... some of them mods. People I know IRL left because they got busy with other things in life or got tired of the silly squabbles and political faction bs.

I think there are larger forum-use trends generally that have moved a lot of activity to Facebook and other non-forum social media. This does not mean that bad behavior by mods or users didn't have an effect---just not a decisive one. There were much bigger bans and squabbles in the past--including under the more democratic mod system (the commie club or whatever it was called - which had a standing Ban/restrict thread).

Again this is not to say that on the subjective level, a bad atmosphere on the site (from bad modding or bad behavior from other users) didn't contribute. But solely blaming the actions of admins (when bans, petty or faction squabbles etc existed the entire time the site!) is not actually critique - it's just finger-pointing. It actually stops attempts to see what might be done to change the subjective situation... which brings me to...

3. "If you had it your way"... you'd basically re-create a mod system, just with you in charge of picking mods! You said you'd pick a few active posters and try and figure out ways to manage the site with accountability! What do you think the mods/admins did? There were many different systems and policies over the years... people trying different methods etc.

If I had it my way I think we'd need to change the structure of the site. We'd need to be more open and de-politicize/de-personalize any necessary mod tasks.

My preference would be a 3-section site: restricted, left, and revolutionary.

Restricted would be more or less the same.

The Left section would be the main part of the board and the main entry for all new users. Anyone left of center could participate and there wouldn't be a stigma to be in there. Nazis could be banned, open right-wingers restricted, and this would help eliminate the crypto-conservative/liberal/reformist witch-hunting mentality that sometimes happened. If a new leftie with liberal baggage came to the site they would not have to fear "punishment" via restriction.

The Revolutionary section would be like a commie club but focused on discussion. People could be voted in after 50 posts or whatnot based on simple standards. Then maybe they could vote on a mod team to do basic things like deleting spam and restricting right-wingers.

I think this might help in allowing new people to grow and make political argument mistakes without punishment, eliminate the heavy internal focus of the old CC. Allow established members to choose to debate reformists in the Left section or avoid them by focusing their political discussion in the Revolution part of the site.

Idk, it wouldn't work now at current levels of participation... and it might have just reproduced the problems of the old commie club attempt. But I think trying to address over-internalizing on the site, witch-hunt mentalities by mods and members, over-scrutiny of users who might just be novices to the left, and instead help promote an atmosphere where good political discussion is rewarded rather than a focus on looking for transgressions that need to be restricted, penalized, banned.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Would 'Thank' this post if I could....

I'll reference the 'Buzzfeed' approach, as at this thread:


How much of a feminist are you?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/threads/196738-How-much-of-a-feminist-are-you


---


(Meaning that maybe some of us could develop a set of qualifying questions for each of the sections of 'restricted', 'left', and 'revolutionary'.)

(And/or *all* of the different-leveled qualifying questions could be mixed-together, so that too many non-revolutionary answers would 'drop' the user into the 'left' section, and too many non-left answers would drop the user into the 'restricted' status.) (All users' provided answers would be publicly displayed, and any subsequently-provided posts / statements from the user could be informally / casually 'matched' or juxtaposed to their stated positions from the qualifying questions, for the sake of clarification and corroboration, going-forward.)

[BOZG]

So why was TAT banned due to the serious issues of admins... the same who allowed him to return and gave him a lot of the benefit of a doubt? Why was he banned a second time? I dont really remember him behaving in the way that you say he did to get banned a second time? I remember him saying that he didnt want to be a moderator on a board that defended people who attack victims of rape. Maybe you have more insight into it? But whatever you think of TAT he was an active member just like all the others who were banned. It doesnt really matter what you think of him as a person, the point was that his and other peoples bannings have contributed to this board being the way it is.

[Bea Arthur]

Why was he banned a second time? I dont really remember him behaving in the way that you say he did to get banned a second time? I remember him saying that he didnt want to be a moderator on a board that defended people who attack victims of rape. Maybe you have more insight into it? But whatever you think of TAT he was an active member just like all the others who were banned. It doesnt really matter what you think of him as a person, the point was that his and other peoples bannings have contributed to this board being the way it is.

We have no idea why he was banned because of the "transparency" Jimmie claims the mods and admins on this site uphold, in what must be one of the more risible statements I've ever seen on this site. Bans on this site have been out of control for years. Over time it has a cumulative effective, especially when it's difficult to generate a userbase in the face of competing online communities with a similar purpose. By early 2016, this site was in trouble, and its userbase was depleted. The purges that occurred the first half of the year signaled the death knell. Anybody who believes otherwise should explain why the last round of purges around April coincided EXACTLY with the current ghost-town state of affairs. It's not "insensitive" to analogize the lack of accountability and heavy-handedness that the midnight disappearances in the USSR in the 1930s featured, and the same inexplicable disappearances and mass bannings that have distinguished this site as a punchline among people who look for online communities to discuss left politics. It's simply pointing out the underlying lack of accountability, arrogance, and otherwise stupidity of the rationale that drives such behavior. Nobody here is pretending that banned revleft members were "murdered" or that there's a moral equivalent between the two. But as we have seen, these moderators will say or do anything to absolve themselves from their obvious responsibility for wrecking this site. Including misrepresenting and caricaturing arguments, ignoring obvious facts about the level of activity on this site, and all the rest. The response of Jimmie and CKaihatsu demonstrate perfectly, more than a million of my posts could, the noxious combination of self-righteousness and stupidity that has created the current Revleft.

[ckaihatsu]

The response of Jimmie and CKaihatsu demonstrate perfectly, more than a million of my posts could, the noxious combination of self-righteousness and stupidity that has created the current Revleft.


I take offense at this personal characterization of yours, and I dispute it.

You're clearly talking about the *admins* regarding the bannings, and I've only banned one user ever, a fairly recent spammer.

If you're so interested in these internal issues you may want to advance some proposals / courses of action about such administrative matters.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I'm out.

Lol, guess not.

Can you quote back to me where I said that admins "uphold transparency"?

I didn't say that, I didn't say that admins/mods are prefect... TAT as admin is proof enough of the ways some mods/admins were not prefect.

My argument is simply that you are unconstructivly pointing fingers and that, since the activity you blame for the sites decline existed throughout the site's history, it is inadequate to explain the current state of things or the lack of new posters to the site.

Second, your repeated claim that being "unfriended" (fairly or unfairly) is the same as Stalinism or totalitarian repression is not a good look. It makes you come across as a child with no perspective. Please take a trip to a holocaust museum, visit the Warsaw ghetto section and whisper to the patron next to you... I know what that's like, I once had some buddies that were banned unfairly from an Internet forum.

Or idk, gain some perspective and common human empathy for people who actually were repressed rather than (unfairly, in your view) kicked off an internet discussion page. Dropping your ice cream may suck, but don't compare that to people suffering a famine. It's tasteless hyperbole.

Frankly I stopped posting here because I got tired of the pointless internal squabbles, debates, and petty insults. It makes me feel drawn into that pettiness and I really only want to post here to hear other political views, debate these ideas/tactics. So that general bad atmosphere from either admins or regular posters is the starting-point for my thoughts on the state of the board.

If people posted more topical things, shit on eachother personally for political disagreements less, gave new posters the benefit of the doubt more... then maybe the site wouldn't revive fully but the new folks who do pop-in might be inclined to stay, learn, debate etc.

I suspect that your attraction to the site was not based on wanting to exchange ideas... so what drew you here in the first place? Maybe we can start there to see what might help improve or repair the site.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jimmie Higgins]

Why was he banned a second time? I dont really remember him behaving in the way that you say he did to get banned a second time? I remember him saying that he didnt want to be a moderator on a board that defended people who attack victims of rape. Maybe you have more insight into it? But whatever you think of TAT he was an active member just like all the others who were banned. It doesnt really matter what you think of him as a person, the point was that his and other peoples bannings have contributed to this board being the way it is.

Their ban was do to accusations I will not post here because they are serious (outside of just forums) and i do not want to spread them if they are simply accusations without merit. I only found out about his ban after the fact. Everything I heard was second-hand and I have no way to determine if they are true or not. I do not think banning people (other than nazis) is a good way to handle things on this forum, but I think TAT is a rare case where any site would have needed to do that.

But putting that aside, TAT got SPECIAL TREATMENT from the admins... no one else was ever given as many second chances or blind-eyes. If anything TAT being allowed back is an example of unfair administration. Then when he came back he behaved for a while in public, but he was the same manipulative person-- I'm sorry if you or anyone here were tricked into thinking that he was your "bud" - if so you were nearly sucked into a cult of personality.

I was a mod when he came back and was told by the admins that we couldn't give him verbal warnings because he would make a stink about it. I was told that he thought I was harassing him because I once told him not to call a user an idiot... it wasn't even an "official warning" ...simply a request for calm in the discussion. I was told by admins that I was not allowed to interact with him...so i simply put him on ignore.

So claims that he was mistreated do not resonate with any of my experiences with him as a site mod who probably banned more people than anyone else, as a ex-banned member, and so on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jimmie Higgins]

We have no idea why he was banned because of the "transparency" Jimmie claims the mods and admins on this site uphold, in what must be one of the more risible statements I've ever seen on this site.

In case you missed this in my reply to you above, please quote-back where I made this claim. Where did you see this "risible" statement I made... I don't remember ever arguing this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Le Libérer]

Jimmie, Bea's biggest contribution to this board has been to whine about any and everything he can. Really Bea? Your suggestion is Reddit and Facebook? Ok.go for it if those platforms are so wonderful. My suggestion to you Bea, is stop calling ckaihatsu an idiot who spams a dead forum, when in fact anyone could say the same thing to you. Until you have contributed as much as Jimmy and Ckaihatsu have to this forum, why don't you stop with the name calling and seriously consider getting a life. I'm not convinced you aren't a sock anyway.

[Le Libérer]

Seriously it was about to be sacked until about a week ago. We are going to put a few changes in place that could make a difference. I think a huge problem is and Malte agrees, is theres been a lack of admining, so we're committing to overhauling from the top. Another thing we are discussing is streamlining the forums and bringing new blood into the BA.

[ckaihatsu]

Dropping your ice cream may suck, but don't compare that to people suffering a famine. It's tasteless hyperbole.


It's tasteless hyperbolic ice cream.


= D





Seriously it was about to be sacked until about a week ago.


It's more valuable for its domain-name 'real estate' -- 'RevLeft.com'.... (grin)

[Le Libérer]

It's more valuable for its domain-name 'real estate' -- 'RevLeft.com'.... (grin)
chelives.com even more. ;)

[pastradamus]

LOL. You two mods can keep your heads in the sand. To the OP who asked the question, the last two posts in this thread have given you your answer. I'm out.

I was about to go off on a tirade on your ass, but that wouldn't help the OP. To answer the OP - YES. It's been a rocky road from back in the good old-days, but as someone who used to enjoy coming here I'd hate to see the old lady fade away. So myself and numerous mods and admins, including former admins and mods are currently in discussion about reviving revleft. We shall be in touch, discussions are daly as well as ideas and every one of us will be back shortly. Feel free to suggest improvements.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

Seriously it was about to be sacked until about a week ago. We are going to put a few changes in place that could make a difference. I think a huge problem is and Malte agrees, is theres been a lack of admining, so we're committing to overhauling from the top. Another thing we are discussing is streamlining the forums and bringing new blood into the BA.
If I can make a suggestion regarding 'streamlining'. On a different forum that I'm on there's something called a 'newsreader violation' that basically sets out that someone posting an article without commentary of their own is not fostering discussion. As much as I like ckaihatsu and respect their passion for the movement, a lot of the articles posted don't generate discussion on their own - and this makes the 'Latest Posts' section cluttered with threads without much in the way of discussion.

There is also a 'UK News' or a 'US News' general thread sort of thing so that if you have an article that highlights something that you think other members should be aware of but don't have much to input yourself for discussion purposes then at least it can be posted and who knows someone might find it interesting enough to comment. It also allows a focal point for members to find out news or discussion about the areas that they live in etc. I think for the purposes of this forum a 'LGBTQ News' or similar could be an alternative. If a topic is important enough to a poster that they have a lot of commentary then they're more than welcome to post that commentary in a separate thread in order to facilitate discussion and, of course, sometimes certain things don't fit into various threads well enough so some things slip through.

That would be about the only 'rule' I would introduce.

[pastradamus]

If I can make a suggestion regarding 'streamlining'. On a different forum that I'm on there's something called a 'newsreader violation' that basically sets out that someone posting an article without commentary of their own is not fostering discussion. As much as I like ckaihatsu and respect their passion for the movement, a lot of the articles posted don't generate discussion on their own - and this makes the 'Latest Posts' section cluttered with threads without much in the way of discussion.

There is also a 'UK News' or a 'US News' general thread sort of thing so that if you have an article that highlights something that you think other members should be aware of but don't have much to input yourself for discussion purposes then at least it can be posted and who knows someone might find it interesting enough to comment. It also allows a focal point for members to find out news or discussion about the areas that they live in etc. I think for the purposes of this forum a 'LGBTQ News' or similar could be an alternative. If a topic is important enough to a poster that they have a lot of commentary then they're more than welcome to post that commentary in a separate thread in order to facilitate discussion and, of course, sometimes certain things don't fit into various threads well enough so some things slip through.

That would be about the only 'rule' I would introduce.

A good idea. I'd like to close-off some sections here. We have groups not-updated in quite some time. I'd love a UK group where people can talk about stuff like Brexit, Blair and the good ol' IMT days...ahhhhh liverpool.

Guys suggest anything you can, this is an open discussion, it if improves the site then we're all going to profit from this exercise.

[Le Libérer]

If I can make a suggestion regarding 'streamlining'. On a different forum that I'm on there's something called a 'newsreader violation' that basically sets out that someone posting an article without commentary of their own is not fostering discussion. As much as I like ckaihatsu and respect their passion for the movement, a lot of the articles posted don't generate discussion on their own - and this makes the 'Latest Posts' section cluttered with threads without much in the way of discussion.

There is also a 'UK News' or a 'US News' general thread sort of thing so that if you have an article that highlights something that you think other members should be aware of but don't have much to input yourself for discussion purposes then at least it can be posted and who knows someone might find it interesting enough to comment. It also allows a focal point for members to find out news or discussion about the areas that they live in etc. I think for the purposes of this forum a 'LGBTQ News' or similar could be an alternative. If a topic is important enough to a poster that they have a lot of commentary then they're more than welcome to post that commentary in a separate thread in order to facilitate discussion and, of course, sometimes certain things don't fit into various threads well enough so some things slip through.

That would be about the only 'rule' I would introduce.
I remember a while back we expected commentary to news stories. Let's reinstate this practice.

[Bea Arthur]

Jimmie, Bea's biggest contribution to this board has been to whine about any and everything he can. Really Bea?

I love how the main person who runs this site thinks it's okay to misgender the users. Revolutionary, indeed! What's your biggest contribution? Oh, yes! To ban all the long-time users and turn this place into a circle-jerk for mods and admins who have nothing better to do!

[Le Libérer]

.... should seriously consider getting a life.
Kettle black.

[Le Libérer]

I love how the main person who runs this site thinks it's okay to misgender the users. Revolutionary, indeed! What's your biggest contribution? Oh, yes! To ban all the long-time users and turn this place into a circle-jerk for mods and admins who have nothing better to do!
What do you know about what I do? You only have 150 posts on this board. Get a life kid. Seriously.

[DDR]

The purges hadn't kill Revleft, I mean I can count 4 out of the top of my head and none of them brought the forum down. For me it's that one get bored of the same old sectarian flame infighting threads ("tankies r nutsies" "Trotsky had no climbing skillz" "Kronstad wuz the sheit", etc.). Also, there was a lot, and I mean a lot of internet drama, and this thread proves that that trend hasn't faded (the population had declined but toxic people seems not). There was also that Revleft almost became yankee forum. Threads about class struggle or international conflicts would had faded if it wasn't because of some posters who keep them alive, but, oh boy! if someone post the latest killary's fart or drumpf's burp, or some minor stuff in the US that thread would get thousand upon thousand of replies.

Those are my 2 cents as an old-timer.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Haha, I will still post about US stuff. If I can speak for US comrades a) class struggle is low here b) we are, or at least I am, interested in hearing about all issues...

but I hope comrades have patience and realize the new US posters are coming from default understanding handed-down by a mainstream press and education system where other regions are grey blurs on school maps and "world history" classes are taught like the prequels of everything that led to the formation of the US. A technically "open" country where corporate power has led in practice to a North Korea-like sense of the rest of the world. :D


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Le Libérer]

The purges hadn't kill Revleft, I mean I can count 4 out of the top of my head and none of them brought the forum down. For me it's that one get bored of the same old sectarian flame infighting threads ("tankies r nutsies" "Trotsky had no climbing skillz" "Kronstad wuz the sheit", etc.). Also, there was a lot, and I mean a lot of internet drama, and this thread proves that that trend hasn't faded (the population had declined but toxic people seems not). There was also that Revleft almost became yankee forum. Threads about class struggle or international conflicts would had faded if it wasn't because of some posters who keep them alive, but, oh boy! if someone post the latest killary's fart or drumpf's burp, or some minor stuff in the US that thread would get thousand upon thousand of replies.

Those are my 2 cents as an old-timer.
I agree. I received a very detailed PM from an old user who said pretty much the same thing. He had some wise words I'd like to share here. I quote

Revleft by nature lends itself to being dominated by specific controversies (i.e. debates) by specific users, even years at a time. Positions get fleshed out, such that we identify so and so views with so and so user, and forums content will revolve around this. Other mediums, conversely, are conductive to environments wherein the individual gets their five seconds of fame and is quickly forgotten - content is always immediately passing, and likewise controversies are usually immediately fleeting ones. Whether that is good or bad (and I do not think it is a good development), that's just how this new generation tends to be.

SO how do we get passed this phenomena? Or can we?
He had other very smart observations and suggestions that were very helpful in going forward. It was criticism but constructive criticism that we can address. Such as

The big problem with Revleft I see, based on how others talk about it, is that no one really sees Revleft as embodying the Left in general - they see it as something sectarian/partisan in and of itself, i.e. as representing its own kind of idiosyncrasy of the Left. And this might just be because the forum has not optimized itself to the actually existing differences in the broad Left as they have developed in recent years. I can elaborate on this more if any of you should like. One way of overcoming this is a MASSIVE design overhaul that will make Revleft far more minimalistic. Revleft's logo makes it look like it is too specific a website. A very minimalistic design and logo lends itself to the view of a more open-ended, 'neutral' (for the Left) environment. Also a massive simplification of how threads are organized, but many of you probably are already discussing this.

This is something we can work on and are working on. So please keep the "2 cents" coming. Thanks

[willowtooth]

Who's TAT?

[GiantMonkeyMan]

They were known as The Feral Underclass before they were banned for the final time but they were once known as The Anarchist Tendency or somesuch until they abandoned anarchism. I had a lot of arguments with him regarding certain events and positions but I didn't necessarily think they were a complete douche.

[willowtooth]

They were known as The Feral Underclass before they were banned for the final time but they were once known as The Anarchist Tendency or somesuch until they abandoned anarchism. I had a lot of arguments with him regarding certain events and positions but I didn't necessarily think they were a complete douche.

The Feral underclass I remember, but why do you keep saying 'they"? Did he have multiple personality disorder or something? lol

[GiantMonkeyMan]

I don't do it very well but I often try to avoid using gendered pronouns etc in cases of ambiguity. 'They' is a good neutral pronoun just in case. Of course in that very post I call them 'him'.... D:

(pretty sure TAT identified as a man, honestly, but I'm not sure)

[Zanthorus]

I started posting on this site nearly eight years ago. At the time I was brand new to leftism, the site was bustling with so many different perspectives, and so many different cliques based on those perspectives. Because of the variety a lot of discussions tended to tread over the same ground on very basic issues, this was somewhat helpful to opening up my horizons to ideas I never would have encountered or dreamed of in the normal run of political discussion.

But for deeper discussion, you needed some more common ground. Hence most users over time formed themselves into distinct interrelated groups. I myself was guilty of this. The related groups formed their own external boards for discussion among themselves and began to become ever more antagonistic to the common rung of the administration, which resulted in the successive purges. I was personally part of one of the splinter groups, which resulted in me being banned temporarily. My account was unbanned after the situation had cooled down, but at that point, all the users I associated with politically had jumped ship to the splinter board, so my motivation to post here was gone.

I have a lot of nostalgia for Revleft, I can't deny posting here formed a huge part of my development as a Marxist. But for me personally the issue is simply that all the users whose posts I used to wait enthusiastically to read, the ones who brought the perspectives I grew to love to the same tired debates, they've all abandoned ship.

EDIT: Skimming over the learning and political sub-forums just now gives you pretty much the whole story. Most of the user base that's left is some variant of Leninist or Trotskyist. There's a thread on Labour's draft manifesto, a few years ago the thread probably would've been swarmed with Anarchists and Left-Communists debating the position of the Labour party in the worker's movement. Now it's 100% Trots.

DOUBLE EDIT: I have to mention, in fairness, the splinter groups have also seen a huge reduction in activity. The specific one I was a part of had probably at least a dozen active users at it's highest point, and quite a few hangers on in addition, now we're down to five people who ever post anything. I can't say much about the role of Reddit in this, personally I think Reddit is terrible as a discussion platform.

[Sentinel]

I have a lot of nostalgia for Revleft, I can't deny posting here formed a huge part of my development as a Marxist. But for me personally the issue is simply that all the users whose posts I used to wait enthusiastically to read, the ones who brought the perspectives I grew to love to the same tired debates, they've all abandoned ship.

Same here, about the nostalgia for old times. Having been here on-and-off for as long as 12 years myself, I can relate to not only most of the users that were here when I joined having left, but several generations of active userbases having come and gone, and I've thus felt this same feeling of longing a few times.

When I joined in 2005, there had already been 2 splinter boards formed at that point. One had been a stalinkiddie splitoff and another had been over the "undemocratic" nature of the Commie Club (ironically, a unique experiment in online forum democracy RevLeft had back then).

As long as the site is active, which we strive to accomplish again, this process with cliques forming over issues with the administration will no doubt this continue to repeat itself. It is part of the nature of the game, simply.



I have to mention, in fairness, the splinter groups have also seen a huge reduction in activity. The specific one I was a part of had probably at least a dozen active users at it's highest point, and quite a few hangers on in addition, now we're down to five people who ever post anything.


It is also part of the nature of the game. The splitters always fail. RevLeft always remains.


EDIT: Skimming over the learning and political sub-forums just now gives you pretty much the whole story. Most of the user base that's left is some variant of Leninist or Trotskyist. There's a thread on Labour's draft manifesto, a few years ago the thread probably would've been swarmed with Anarchists and Left-Communists debating the position of the Labour party in the worker's movement. Now it's 100% Trots.

I think it is mostly a coincidence that most (not all though, just looking at the active staff) of the users here at the moment are trotskyists, it is more telling of the current quiet state of the board - which we intend to remedy - than of some political power struggle having purged other tendencies. Trots and anarchists always formed the core of the membership, so it makes sense either would form the nucleus that is left atm.

It would be cool if you chose to start posting here again. We have plans to bring the site to it's former glory with a restructuring process that has just started.

While I guess we mainly strive to attract new users - as your story indicates, RevLeft was always above all a resource for those new to the Left, and in the present situation there exists globally a huge layer of freshly radicalised youth - we've also traditionally been home to all kinds of people interested in online debate, and veteran users form an important bridge to our past.

[Zanthorus]

It is also part of the nature of the game. The splitters always fail. RevLeft always remains.

That used to be the case.

One thing I can also say, a lot of the actually interesting discussions around the specific split I was involved with happened on Skype and other IM platforms, not on the splinter board itself.


Trots and anarchists always formed the core of the membership, so it makes sense either would form the nucleus that is left atm.

This is probably true, and in addition there's already another prominent competing forum with no connections to Revleft that caters specifically to the Anarchist crowd for them to jump ship to, which doesn't exist for Trotskyism.


It would be cool if you chose to start posting here again. We have plans to bring the site to it's former glory with a restructuring process that has just started.

I might post here ocassionally in the learning forum if I see any questions I like.

[Sentinel]

That used to be the case.

We will Make RevLeft Great Again, just see ;)

[Ele'ill]

The forum looks and behaves a lot better now. Thanks to the two people involved in my unbanning.

[Bea Arthur]

The forum is run on the basis of the personal whims of a few of the higher ups. If you are close to them, you can usually do as you please within a wide range of latitude. The points Jimmie made about TFU/TAT, who was banned then unbanned, then enjoyed some kind of special protected status that was understood among the admins and mods but never made explicit, shows the kind of shady shit that you can expect once more. Meanwhile, scores of brilliant and amazing posters were banned over the previous few years on the thinnest of pretexts or for no explicit reason at all. Ele'ill was ubanned because that user was also once a mod and close, at least on line, to a couple of the peeps who run this place, which is totally consistent with how Revleft has rolled since I first discovered the place.

Sentinel made the point that splits always fail while this place remains. I would challenge that the other media for participating in leftist political discussion are not only not dead, they are about 50 times more active than Revleft is. I understand people have nostalgia, but that doesn't represent a solid basis for rebuilding, which is impossible anyway. Far superior alternatives exist for the kind of discussion that this place aims to cultivate. It's also run by psychologically stable adults who do attempt to operate with a large degree of transparency. The best move going forward would be to preserve the archive and accept the fact that your hobby horse here has run its course.

[Ele'ill]

Mariel

I'm back.

[Ele'ill]

The forum is run on the basis of the personal whims of a few of the higher ups. If you are close to them, you can usually do as you please within a wide range of latitude. The points Jimmie made about TFU/TAT, who was banned then unbanned, then enjoyed some kind of special protected status that was understood among the admins and mods but never made explicit, shows the kind of shady shit that you can expect once more. Meanwhile, scores of brilliant and amazing posters were banned over the previous few years on the thinnest of pretexts or for no explicit reason at all. Ele'ill was ubanned because that user was also once a mod and close, at least on line, to a couple of the peeps who run this place, which is totally consistent with how Revleft has rolled since I first discovered the place.

Sentinel made the point that splits always fail while this place remains. I would challenge that the other media for participating in leftist political discussion are not only not dead, they are about 50 times more active than Revleft is. I understand people have nostalgia, but that doesn't represent a solid basis for rebuilding, which is impossible anyway. Far superior alternatives exist for the kind of discussion that this place aims to cultivate. It's also run by psychologically stable adults who do attempt to operate with a large degree of transparency. The best move going forward would be to preserve the archive and accept the fact that your hobby horse here has run its course.

I have never been close to anyone who runs this board. Some users communicate with mods and admins and are unbanned under a general agreement not to do things to get banned again. I think that's pretty common.

[#FF0000]

I don't share Bea's pessimism about bringing the board "back" but she's right about why it went down in the first place -- the ban waves broke up the community and removed popular and active posters from the community and played some role in a lot of other popular and active posters leaving. I said that literally every time one of these ban waves happened and I'm not sure that anyone can seriously sit here and say that it's not true now.

[pastradamus]

I don't share Bea's pessimism about bringing the board "back" but she's right about why it went down in the first place -- the ban waves broke up the community and removed popular and active posters from the community and played some role in a lot of other popular and active posters leaving. I said that literally every time one of these ban waves happened and I'm not sure that anyone can seriously sit here and say that it's not true now.

Indeed. I'm not going to comment on why TAT was banned - it wasn't my business back then. I can only comment on the discussion we've had as mods/admins and members. I for one was almost banned at one stage due to certain mod and his accusations of "ageism" on my behalf, but he was simply misinterpreting what I was saying and soon apologized. Indeed it was easy to have a misunderstanding back then, members would fly-off-the-handle and make wild accusations and conduct witch-hunts. I have established, with others to create a more non-hostile environment here. I felt I received insanely bad treatment back then and I wouldn't wish it for new members now. I will Admin this board, pledge my time, financial support and input into discussions under the singular context that we don't create the same hostility again.

Previously, I tried to get involved in discussions but was alarmed by the hostility that both myself and some members felt, to a degree, almost too hostile to even continue on here. I refused to turn on my machine and go to revleft.com as I knew i'd be observing the same old stuff.

My vision for Revleft is a simple one. A Revleft where a Marxist and an Anarchist can rip the guts out of each other in a positive and intellectual manner - Whilst also respecting new or learning members. I believe we have a duty as leftists to assist people who are new to the game with respectful discussion. What I don't want is a bunch of thin-skinned losers rambling around who get offended at the slightest thing and target new or returning members. You don't have the right not to be offended by someone because he supports a different form of leftism to you.

As for banning. Of Course we are going to ban certain reactionary people. Its a leftist board. We can't tolerate reactionaries on here, in saying this I for one believe in giving someone a chance to explain his/herself. Lets be reasonable comrades. That's all i'm asking for.

[pastradamus]

The forum is run on the basis of the personal whims of a few of the higher ups.

Not any more.

I
f you are close to them, you can usually do as you please within a wide range of latitude. The points Jimmie made about TFU/TAT, who was banned then unbanned, then enjoyed some kind of special protected status that was understood among the admins and mods but never made explicit, shows the kind of shady shit that you can expect once more. Meanwhile, scores of brilliant and amazing posters were banned over the previous few years on the thinnest of pretexts or for no explicit reason at all. Ele'ill was ubanned because that user was also once a mod and close, at least on line, to a couple of the peeps who run this place, which is totally consistent with how Revleft has rolled since I first discovered the place.

How do you, a member with 158 posts know this? Who were you in a previous life?




Sentinel made the point that splits always fail while this place remains. I would challenge that the other media for participating in leftist political discussion are not only not dead, they are about 50 times more active than Revleft is. I understand people have nostalgia, but that doesn't represent a solid basis for rebuilding, which is impossible anyway. Far superior alternatives exist for the kind of discussion that this place aims to cultivate. It's also run by psychologically stable adults who do attempt to operate with a large degree of transparency. The best move going forward would be to preserve the archive and accept the fact that your hobby horse here has run its course.

Why on earth are you here then? It seem's nostalgia has gotten the better of us both. You seem to speak from experience. If you feel that better alternatives exist then go! If my hobby horse has run then your's has been taken to the glue factory. Honestly, what are you doing here? We are re-investing our time in a project, yes, largely based on nostalgia because many of us grew up here, but what is your reason for being here, other then being pessimistic and sarky?

[Bea Arthur]

Oh, really? Not run on the personal whims of admins? When did this change? Last month? Six months ago? The exact same leadership is in charge, though they've tacked on a couple of new admins based on the spurious suspicion that this place was dead because of "not enough admining" (rather than the reality, which was that it was over-admined).

Who was I in a previous life? A lurker. A concept you seem not to be familiar with. I still lurk mostly, the reason my post count is so low over years and years.

It is rich though to hear an admin complaining about a "hostile environment." Imagine how hostile it must have felt to the dozens and dozens of individuals banned on thin pretexts, trumped up charges, and often for no express reason at all. That's the clique you're now a part of. Congrats!!

[Le Libérer]

If you hate it here so much? Why do you keep whining and posting? Really, you have become a broken record. No one cares, He's moved on so why don't you?

[TomLeftist]

Bea: I understand your points, but I also tried to choose other options in the internet for leftist debates like the World Socialist Web Site. But believe or not, The World Socialist Web Site is very very perfectionist, and very sectarian, and very anti-democratic. They are anti-Mao, anti-Stalin, anti-authoritarianism. But I think that the moderators and administrators and even the members of The World Socialist Web Site are very unfriendly, very cold-hearted. I think that the members of Revleft are friendlier, more humble and a lot more loving than the people of World Socialist Website who are very cold and not very united at all. I think that most people in that website http://www.wsws.org/ are middle class people, not even lower middle class. But middle middle and even upper middle class.

And then the other remaining places for leftist debates are too close to the middle, too centrists, too social-democrats, too centrist-leftists, like Truthdig.com, Commondreams, Information Clearing House etc.

I think that one of the best marxists and more extreme radicalized and very far to the left is Revleft

And the majority of leftists of Youtube and Facebook are also too centrist-leftists, too far to the right, too far to the center-left, too mainstream, too pro-elections, too anti-war, anti-violence, too anti-weapons, too legalists, too moralists, specially people like Thom Hartmann who is a slave of laws and morality. And even Schopenhauer claimed that morality, and laws are the negation toward life, toward progress

So I think that the most far to the left, the most illegalist, most pro-violence, pro-weapons for social change and immoralist leftist debate site is Revleft.

In the other debates forums like Truthdig, Facebook etc. people are too moralists, too legalists, scared of laws, of authorities, of legal codes, slaves of the US constitution. With that excess of legalism, and moralism, it will be hard for people to destroy capitalism and replace it with a dictatorship of poor citizens and workers


.


Oh, really? Not run on the personal whims of admins? When did this change? Last month? Six months ago? The exact same leadership is in charge, though they've tacked on a couple of new admins based on the spurious suspicion that this place was dead because of "not enough admining" (rather than the reality, which was that it was over-admined).

Who was I in a previous life? A lurker. A concept you seem not to be familiar with. I still lurk mostly, the reason my post count is so low over years and years.

It is rich though to hear an admin complaining about a "hostile environment." Imagine how hostile it must have felt to the dozens and dozens of individuals banned on thin pretexts, trumped up charges, and often for no express reason at all. That's the clique you're now a part of. Congrats!!

[ckaihatsu]

-Thanks-, TL. I tend to agree on all points.

[TomLeftist]

Ckaihatsu: Yeah, I know that discussion boards, forums, internet debate websites, should have some sort of moderation against people using bad language, hatred etc. I love the news and articles of The World Socialist Web Site, but they exercise a very strict control of what people write in the final sections of their news articles, in the debate comments sections. I don't know why they are scared against other leftist tendencies. I know that there should be moderation and control against anti-communists, right-wingers, but I think that the excess of elitism and perfectionism of World Socialist Web Site does not help them at all and chases away people who are new into the ideology of marxism, socialism, radical revolutionary workers ideologies.

And then there is as other options Facebook, Youtube etc. That are not so good for radical leftists, for extreme far leftists to discuss and to be motivated toward maintaining a great motivational radical leftist debate. In Facebook people are too cold, even leftists are cold, it is hard to maintain a hot debate there. If you start a topic, it would take like 2 or 3 days for people to write you back. So Facebook is very depressing as well for people who love political debates

And the other options like Truthdig, Commondreams, etc. are too far to the right-wing, too centrist-leftists. There is a Facebook Counterpunch.org debate group. But the majority of people there seem to me people belonging to the middle class. And I think that it is very very hard for people to move far to the extreme violent left, ready and willing to participate in an armed rebellion against the capitalist pigs because the majority of people of the middle classes tend to be too compromised too mentally emotionally controlled by the capitalist businesses where they work. So if they have a sort of relative nice life, it will be hard for them to file a divorce with that nice relative wealthy motivating lifestyle and to become real communists warriors. So the only type of people that are great potential violent rebels are people who are leftists, who know the basic theories of socialism, capitalism and international politics and how the world works. But at the same time they should also be people who are beating the bullets economically, who hate the repetitive depressing slow suicide that most lower-class americans live. And to be willing to participate in order to crush and destroy thei depressing painful life they live in order to hope for a better life full of pleasures and happiness


-Thanks-, TL. I tend to agree on all points.

[Sewer Socialist]

isn't wsws run by a bunch of rape apologists

[ckaihatsu]

Ckaihatsu: Yeah, I know that discussion boards, forums, internet debate websites, should have some sort of moderation against people using bad language, hatred etc. I love the news and articles of The World Socialist Web Site, but they exercise a very strict control of what people write in the final sections of their news articles, in the debate comments sections. I don't know why they are scared against other leftist tendencies. I know that there should be moderation and control against anti-communists, right-wingers, but I think that the excess of elitism and perfectionism of World Socialist Web Site does not help them at all and chases away people who are new into the ideology of marxism, socialism, radical revolutionary workers ideologies.

And then there is as other options Facebook, Youtube etc. That are not so good for radical leftists, for extreme far leftists to discuss and to be motivated toward maintaining a great motivational radical leftist debate. In Facebook people are too cold, even leftists are cold, it is hard to maintain a hot debate there. If you start a topic, it would take like 2 or 3 days for people to write you back. So Facebook is very depressing as well for people who love political debates

And the other options like Truthdig, Commondreams, etc. are too far to the right-wing, too centrist-leftists. There is a Facebook Counterpunch.org debate group. But the majority of people there seem to me people belonging to the middle class. And I think that it is very very hard for people to move far to the extreme violent left, ready and willing to participate in an armed rebellion against the capitalist pigs because the majority of people of the middle classes tend to be too compromised too mentally emotionally controlled by the capitalist businesses where they work. So if they have a sort of relative nice life, it will be hard for them to file a divorce with that nice relative wealthy motivating lifestyle and to become real communists warriors. So the only type of people that are great potential violent rebels are people who are leftists, who know the basic theories of socialism, capitalism and international politics and how the world works. But at the same time they should also be people who are beating the bullets economically, who hate the repetitive depressing slow suicide that most lower-class americans live. And to be willing to participate in order to crush and destroy thei depressing painful life they live in order to hope for a better life full of pleasures and happiness


Tom (I won't use 'TL' since you seem to be using a real name),

- I think the role that the WSWS plays is an important one -- basically socialism-sided journalism -- and so I can't get too much into the look-and-feel / 'style' aspects of their organization (SEP), since doing too much of that then becomes a line of *lifestylist* critique.

- I'm unsure of interorganizational relations since I have practically no experience around such matters.

- I doubt that the SEP is exercising 'elitism and perfectionism' in the comments section because that part is handled by Disqus (https://disqus.com/).

- I think people are commonly used to thinking of the Internet *itself* as being cold and impersonal, and so that kind of attitude / expectation becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Incidentally, a large part of the reason for my efforts at making political diagrams over the years has been to *counteract* this kind of assumed participatory atomism, to provide some kind of 'agreeable frameworks' as a basis for mutual understanding before and during discussions.

https://postimg.org/gallery/119hww32/

For the type of 'middle class' people you're describing, I'll proffer that we as political people should first 'qualify' them as being political or not. *Anyone* should be able to just live their own lives if that's what they really want to do, and to be 'apolitical' in the societal context. (Of course being apolitical is equivalent to tolerating the status quo, but I'll leave this fact aside for the moment.)

The *implication*, though, of being truly apolitical is that such people should fully understand that they're *forfeiting* any claim to any *political* participation whatsoever. If the revolutionary vanguard suddenly begins to make inroads at all levels of government administration, such middle-class people should be reminded that they're formally socially *indifferent* to matters of social organization and have preferred to let the world turn as it may.

We can argue with considerable certainty that a global workers revolution *would* transform people's lives for the better -- we can at least say that it would be a sea-change regarding what 'work' is (for humane ends), and that we can bury the antiquated bourgeois economic system of money and exchange values forever.

As things are now only a few tens of billions of dollars would be sufficient to erase poverty for everyone everywhere, so obviously the *material capacity* for a humane humanity currently exists.

http://www.borgenmagazine.com/much-money-end-global-poverty/

On the topic of *pain* itself, I'll recommend a *biochemical* approach:





Since discovering sole, I start my day with a teaspoon of this powerfully detoxing and rejuvenating elixir. Because it requires only himalayan salt (or Real Salt), water, and a jar, this health treatment is accessible and affordable for everyone.

The benefits of himalayan salt sole include:


Detoxifies the body by balancing systemic pH

Improves hydration by providing trace minerals

Improves mineral status of the body

Reduces muscle cramps by improving minerals and hydration

Helps balance blood sugar

Supports hormone balance for everyone, no matter what hormonal issues you face

Helps balance blood pressure because it provides unrefined, mineral-rich salt in an ionic solution

Improves sleep by supporting blood sugar and hormone balance

Acts as a powerful antihistamine

Supports weight loss by balancing hormones and improving energy

Supports thyroid and adrenal function (Source and read more benefits!)

http://empoweredsustenance.com/himalayan-salt-benefits/





Borax is considered an antimicrobial compound, a fungicide, anti-inflammatory, and detoxifying agent. As such, the substance is effective for preventing the accumulation of fluorides and other toxic substances in the body, removing parasites and bacteria, treating molds and other fungi and chelating the system of heavy metals. Borax also stimulates the production of important hormones and stabilizes calcium, copper and magnesium levels in the body to inhibit calcification.

Sodium borate is also effective for treating a variety of specific ailments. As an anti-inflammatory agent, borax effectively treats arthritis, gout, swollen gums and other inflammatory diseases. Additionally, the substance eliminates infection such as bladder infection, urinary tract infection and others. It has also been used to treat cancer, obesity, high blood pressure, arterial disease and osteoporosis.

http://www.earthclinic.com/remedies/borax.html




Sole (so-lay) -- a health plan for those who can afford unrefined sea salt

tinyurl.com/sole-sea-salt


And:


newtimer5 [Rife Frequencies]

https://www.youtube.com/user/newtimer5/videos


---





isn't wsws run by a bunch of rape apologists


Can you explain more here -- ?

[mashriq]

exactly What Stalinists do!

[willowtooth]

exactly What Stalinists do!
damn right!

[Gingercadi]

We all hope so.

[ooohjeremycorbyn]

Are the mods still pretending the great purge of 2011 never happened? That was the beginning of the end for the site, many of the best contributors were banned, many more left voluntarily and many more developed contempt for the site. Distrust for the mods never went away because of their attempts to save the situation by banning anyone who mentioned the purge and censoring the name of the rival forum, which only made the site's reputation stink more. It also set a precedent for, apparently, more purges later, which are referenced here but I stopped visiting in 2011 because of the way the place was moderated so never witnessed it, but it doesn't surprise me. The splinter forum Redmarx never competed in terms of quantity of posts but nowadays it seems about the same, and the quality is actually higher.

When was the Commie Club abolished? I can't remember if it was before or after the purge. I remember Demorgorgon, a good quality user, being banned for saying pro-lifers needn't be banned, despite being pro-choice himself. I think that event was the beginning of the decline.

[ooohjeremycorbyn]

The banning of "reformists" was also a problem, as it narrowed the scope of discussion a lot, cut out a lot of good socialist activists, and allowed toxic fantasists to thrive.

[Ele'ill]

The splinter forum Redmarx never competed in terms of quantity of posts but nowadays it seems about the same, and the quality is actually higher.

Didn't it then suffer its own ban waves and users dropping off but like the original users who went there from here

[ooohjeremycorbyn]

Didn't it then suffer its own ban waves and users dropping off but like the original users who went there from here

No idea, didn't really follow it.

[The Intransigent Faction]

The banning of "reformists" was also a problem, as it narrowed the scope of discussion a lot, cut out a lot of good socialist activists, and allowed toxic fantasists to thrive.

In all fairness, reformists invariably betray communists at critical moments. They can pose a greater threat than blatant reactionaries, who are already banned.

[ooohjeremycorbyn]

In all fairness, reformists invariably betray communists at critical moments. They can pose a greater threat than blatant reactionaries, who are already banned.

That's a massive simplification. The historical labour movement was always reformist in its demands. Socialists working within wider social-democratic movements have achieved far more than any Trotskyist groupiscule. They haven't abolished capitalism, sure, but neither have any anarchist or Trotskyist groups. And, in countries with well established electoral systems, it is absolutely necessary to win elections to be regarded as having any popular legitimacy. The strict rules on "reformism" here mean that this forum is irrelevant to the actual labour movement in real life, which is actually having a resurgence in recent years.

[ckaihatsu]

That's a massive simplification. The historical labour movement was always reformist in its demands. Socialists working within wider social-democratic movements have achieved far more than any Trotskyist groupiscule. They haven't abolished capitalism, sure, but neither have any anarchist or Trotskyist groups. And, in countries with well established electoral systems, it is absolutely necessary to win elections to be regarded as having any popular legitimacy. The strict rules on "reformism" here mean that this forum is irrelevant to the actual labour movement in real life, which is actually having a resurgence in recent years.


We don't have to be *beholden* to trends in the labor movement from the early 20th century, though.

It's most-likely the 'socialist' part of the *socialists* -- meaning further-left than trade-union consciousness -- that pulled the politics of the day further toward revolutionary aims than if there *hadn't* been socialists arguing for workers power.

Revolutionaries are not about showing 'legitimacy' through trying to win bourgeois elections -- which is inherently reformist, like Bernie Sanders, since it tries to make changes from *within* the capitalist power structure, which is reformism.

You're arguing here *for* reformist politics on this site, a non-starter, since this board is about *revolutionary* politics. Be very careful in your next few posts / arguments, because if you insist on maintaining a reformist-type line you will be restricted and possibly banned.

[EDIT:] Looking at the RevLeft FAQ, it looks like there may be more of a 'gray area' around leftist / liberal positions expressed on the board -- nonetheless, support for the status quo, capitalist system, as through a reformist ideology, could be reasonably interpreted as showing tacit support for capitalism as-it-is, thus making you a 'convinced capitalist':




This Community is open to all leftists. Right-wingers are not welcome, but tolerated within the 'Opposing Ideologies' forum. Right-wing messages will be ignored or deleted in all other forums and the author will be banned. If you are a right-winger or convinced capitalist and can accept this rule, good. If not, fuck off and never come back!




https://www.revleft.space/vb/faq.php

[Ele'ill]

No idea, didn't really follow it.

it's just that you brought it up as if you were saying their quality was higher which wouldn't be the case if those places also had the same problems

[Bea Arthur]

Are the mods still pretending the great purge of 2011 never happened? That was the beginning of the end for the site, many of the best contributors were banned, many more left voluntarily and many more developed contempt for the site. Distrust for the mods never went away because of their attempts to save the situation by banning anyone who mentioned the purge and censoring the name of the rival forum, which only made the site's reputation stink more. It also set a precedent for, apparently, more purges later, which are referenced here but I stopped visiting in 2011 because of the way the place was moderated so never witnessed it, but it doesn't surprise me. The splinter forum Redmarx never competed in terms of quantity of posts but nowadays it seems about the same, and the quality is actually higher.

When was the Commie Club abolished? I can't remember if it was before or after the purge. I remember Demorgorgon, a good quality user, being banned for saying pro-lifers needn't be banned, despite being pro-choice himself. I think that event was the beginning of the decline.

Can we be honest and be clear here that the issue with Revleft hasn't been that it has banned reformists and people who don't fit in with the actual purpose of the forum? (If it did, CKaihatsu would be banned, since he seems to have no awareness of what the purpose of the forum is, and thinks it's a dumping ground for his email inbox!!)

The issue here is that the administration are mostly comprised of people who seem not to be particularly conversant in revolutionary history and theory, and as a result of that have unwittingly taken the side of reformist accusations and subsequently banned many, many members as a result. It's the equivalent of a bacon fan forum that bans meat-eaters. After a while, people will catch on and seek greener pastures.

The admins here seem to have, at best, a passing familiarity with revolutionary politics. Why not ask a bunch of white dudes to admin a forum about the oppression of black women?

[TomLeftist]

Hi, i am not an expert on internet life. But I think that one of the causes of why Revleft and many other alternative news discussion forums, might be the growth and hegemony of social network websites such as Youtube, Facebook and Twitter. People love to jump inside the band-wagon of what ever is trend and in fashion.

But I dont like Facebook, because in order to use Facebook as a discussion board people have to have a lot of patience. For example if a Facebook member writes a topic in the central Facebook site, they have to wait for days before an answer.


Can we be honest and be clear here that the issue with Revleft hasn't been that it has banned reformists and people who don't fit in with the actual purpose of the forum? (If it did, CKaihatsu would be banned, since he seems to have no awareness of what the purpose of the forum is, and thinks it's a dumping ground for his email inbox!!)

The issue here is that the administration are mostly comprised of people who seem not to be particularly conversant in revolutionary history and theory, and as a result of that have unwittingly taken the side of reformist accusations and subsequently banned many, many members as a result. It's the equivalent of a bacon fan forum that bans meat-eaters. After a while, people will catch on and seek greener pastures.

The admins here seem to have, at best, a passing familiarity with revolutionary politics. Why not ask a bunch of white dudes to admin a forum about the oppression of black women?

[ooohjeremycorbyn]

We don't have to be *beholden* to trends in the labor movement from the early 20th century, though.

It's most-likely the 'socialist' part of the *socialists* -- meaning further-left than trade-union consciousness -- that pulled the politics of the day further toward revolutionary aims than if there *hadn't* been socialists arguing for workers power.

Revolutionaries are not about showing 'legitimacy' through trying to win bourgeois elections -- which is inherently reformist, like Bernie Sanders, since it tries to make changes from *within* the capitalist power structure, which is reformism.

You're arguing here *for* reformist politics on this site, a non-starter, since this board is about *revolutionary* politics. Be very careful in your next few posts / arguments, because if you insist on maintaining a reformist-type line you will be restricted and possibly banned.

[EDIT:] Looking at the RevLeft FAQ, it looks like there may be more of a 'gray area' around leftist / liberal positions expressed on the board -- nonetheless, support for the status quo, capitalist system, as through a reformist ideology, could be reasonably interpreted as showing tacit support for capitalism as-it-is, thus making you a 'convinced capitalist':

Recognising the existing political culture and basing your political strategy on existing realities is not pro-capitalist. State power can be used to enact policies which strengthen the labour movement - without "reformists" passing laws to protect trade unions there would be no worker's movement at all. It really isn't a binary thing.

The definition of revolutionary on these boards is far too narrow. Being anti-capitalist should be the main thing. And I'm being threatened with a banning already merely for suggesting this could be a factor in the board's decline. There can be no doubt that over-zealous banning and restricting has been the main factor in driving people away from these boards.

[ckaihatsu]

Recognising the existing political culture and basing your political strategy on existing realities is not pro-capitalist.


Sure, but it's also a slippery-slope -- certainly appropriate *tactics* may include entryist-type maneuvers, or whatever, that don't look anything like revolutionary goals, but if one's *strategies* become too-oriented towards the regular corporate-type political goings-on, then one's *politics* overall look, and are, less and less revolutionary.

I happen to liken the dynamic to that of centripetal physical force 'inwards', towards the nation-state apparatus, with 'centrifugal' force throwing far-left and far-right politics to the extremities, indefinitely forestalling a necessary civil-war-type confrontation between revolutionaries and fascists, as long as the state is healthy enough to keep everyone 'spinning':


Ideologies & Operations -- Left Centrifugalism



http://s6.postimg.org/3si9so4xd/110211_Ideologies_Operations_Left_Centrifug.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/zc8b2rb3h/full/)





State power can be used to enact policies which strengthen the labour movement - without "reformists" passing laws to protect trade unions there would be no worker's movement at all. It really isn't a binary thing.


Of course I can't disagree with you here *historically*, but nonetheless I think you're putting the cart before the horse -- it was rank-and-file labor activity that *dragged* reformist-type politics in its direction, as compromise measures, to box-in any *further* radicalization on much larger scales.

No, it's not a binary thing, but it *should* be, since the class antagonism is irreconcilable, and workers should be the ones controlling social production -- not bourgeois 'owners'.

Regarding practice, it's much better to push for *revolutionary* goals than to get tied-up in the machinations of *state* (bourgeois) politics, since that's currently hegemonic and anti-working-class in institutional interests.





The definition of revolutionary on these boards is far too narrow. Being anti-capitalist should be the main thing. And I'm being threatened with a banning already merely for suggesting this could be a factor in the board's decline. There can be no doubt that over-zealous banning and restricting has been the main factor in driving people away from these boards.


Well, that's one contention, anyway.

So far you haven't shown any anti-capitalist credentials -- you've favored parliamentary-type arguments / positions.

[Ele'ill]

Recognising the existing political culture and basing your political strategy on existing realities is not pro-capitalist.

It is often actually, or pro state, etc.., because the existing realities are processes and controls maintained to enable and protect those things.


State power can be used to enact policies which strengthen the labour movement - without "reformists" passing laws to protect trade unions there would be no worker's movement at all. It really isn't a binary thing.

So what is your understanding of the current state of labor?



The definition of revolutionary on these boards is far too narrow. Being anti-capitalist should be the main thing. And I'm being threatened with a banning already merely for suggesting this could be a factor in the board's decline. There can be no doubt that over-zealous banning and restricting has been the main factor in driving people away from these boards.

If overzealous bannings are what caused the overall decline, what other forums are there which are flourishing?

[The Intransigent Faction]

Well, on the topic of this site...Out of curiosity, I checked out "RevForum". It seems more active, yet registration is apparently disabled. What's the deal with that site?

I haven't been around LibCom for a while. At this point, I'm more interested in real human contact than faceless online dialogue, but in my area the options are few.

[Ele'ill]

^ it's probably invite only or something


just remembered there was that one user on here many years ago who lost their mind and got banned and then lost their mind even more and created another forum using my username and then nobody ever heard from them again.

[Hermes]

^ it's probably invite only or something


just remembered there was that one user on here many years ago who lost their mind and got banned and then lost their mind even more and created another forum using my username and then nobody ever heard from them again.

Sorry for the dumb question - haven't been here in a while. I thought you got banned, along with a number of other users, and was very sorry to see you go. Was there some kind of reversal in admin decisions, or?

[Ele'ill]

Sorry for the dumb question - haven't been here in a while. I thought you got banned, along with a number of other users, and was very sorry to see you go. Was there some kind of reversal in admin decisions, or?

I asked to be unbanned and it was unclear why some bans took place and who did the banning etc.. but yeah i recently got unbanned

[wehbolno]

Well, that's one contention, anyway.

So far you haven't shown any anti-capitalist credentials -- you've favored parliamentary-type arguments / positions.
I know this is supposed to be a moaning thread, but really, do we need to show our 'anti-capitalist' credentials all the time? Can I show you some of the Mercedes emblems I ripped off of cars when I was a stupid kid? That was some pretty epic sticking it to the capitalist man.

But more to the point, there were quite many threads dealing with this issue, regarding the 'reformist' nature of this and that,. One here:

https://www.revleft.space/vb/threads/193670-Jeremy-Corbyn-unified-thread/page3

The Labour Party momentum would be 'reformist' if it were to be juxtaposed to a class-conscious workers movement, but it is not. It is not juxtaposed to a class-conscious workers movement, it is juxtaposed to the imaginations that a small few Leftists have about a proletarian movement emerging from nothing whatsoever.
What worth would it be to qualify every thing we said with 'workers reject capitalism blah blah...', what would it actually mean to people?

[ckaihatsu]

I know this is supposed to be a moaning thread, but really, do we need to show our 'anti-capitalist' credentials all the time? Can I show you some of the Mercedes emblems I ripped off of cars when I was a stupid kid? That was some pretty epic sticking it to the capitalist man.

But more to the point, there were quite many threads dealing with this issue, regarding the 'reformist' nature of this and that,. One here:

https://www.revleft.space/vb/threads/193670-Jeremy-Corbyn-unified-thread/page3


Well, what's the point of being here, at a *revolutionary* forum, if all you want to do is dodge and chit-chat -- ?

All you're doing is making it more difficult for others to discern what your politics are. So far it's looking parliamentary and reformist, and now you're twisting and turning to *avoid* making any solid anti-capitalist statements.

[wehbolno]

Well, what's the point of being here, at a *revolutionary* forum, if all you want to do is dodge and chit-chat -- ?

All you're doing is making it more difficult for others to discern what your politics are. So far it's looking parliamentary and reformist, and now you're twisting and turning to *avoid* making any solid anti-capitalist statements.
I don't expect anyone to care what my politics are. I'm saying 'solid anti-capitalist statements' are pretty pointless. It would seem like posturing, rather than having a stake, a position, in existing struggles as they are, not as we would like them to be.

[ckaihatsu]

I don't expect anyone to care what my politics are. I'm saying 'solid anti-capitalist statements' are pretty pointless. It would seem like posturing, rather than having a stake, a position, in existing struggles as they are, not as we would like them to be.


It's not about 'caring' -- it's about being communicative so that others can see where you're coming from, politically, so as to address you and your points in turn, and vice-versa.

Dealing with politics *at all* is all about transcending the way things *currently* are (the status quo), so as to potentially collectively realize how the world's society *should* be -- it's impossible to sever the what-could-be from the here-and-now, because if the here-and-now was adequate there would no longer be any need for politics whatsoever.


universal context



http://s6.postimg.org/6fg99lqpd/120407_universal_context_aoi_RENDER_sc_01_png_xc.j pg (http://postimg.org/image/fn8hqaxrh/full/)


I'll remind that socialism is all about discarding the 'hands-off' market mechanism, in favor of a collectively conscious mode of *planning* for everything that's critical to humanity's life and living.

[not a real person]

based on history there are multiple reasons why revleft is declining.

one is the lack of interesting material for advanced readers. constant posting by new users of the same questions, and constant discussions of the same topics (too many "sectarian flame infighting threads") is enough to drive away many. and those that aren't driven away, they get banned or restricted.

they are not revolutionary enough. having the wrong opinion on a point of contention. e.g. believing that religion is not such a bad thing has lead to people being restricted in the past, despite their otherwise seemingly almost immaculate ideologies. simply being wrong about something that they shouldn't be wrong about. but because they are wrong, rather than debate, ban. a hypothetical example: a socialist who believes that trans people should be considered to be the gender on the birth certificate is banned. yes, they are wrong. but rather than restrict discussion on that topic by that person to the oi forum, they are banned or restricted wholesale. you had people who were otherwise good socialists, but with wrong opinions in certain areas, restricted or banned rather than their opinion around those areas. no they won't learn if they aren't around to learn.

the olde commie club, an interesting look at on line democracy, failed. but it had potential. i blame the administrative team over the years. partly because they simple didn't introduce protections against mob rule. people who had merely contrary or controversial (but still not wrong) opinions got banned. similarly people who didn't break the rules, but merely pissed enough of the wrong people off, banned. (i used to run. i raan and i raan.) then, with the decline of the participatory rule of the forum, so too people left.

i visit occasionally. now what is leading to the decline appears to be the decline. not a single recent thread i can find on catalonia and independence. i used to visit to read informed opinion on world events. no more. (a reminder to visit revforum.com (no longer censored!?) leads to a relevant and interesting discussion. the sort of which used to occur here.)

my 2 cents from someone that maybe someone remembers ...

[not a real person]

oh yeah, and i never found anywhere on reddit that could replicate the types of discussions that used to occur here. and fuck facebook.

[Bea Arthur]

based on history there are multiple reasons why revleft is declining.

one is the lack of interesting material for advanced readers. constant posting by new users of the same questions, and constant discussions of the same topics (too many "sectarian flame infighting threads") is enough to drive away many. and those that aren't driven away, they get banned or restricted.

they are not revolutionary enough. having the wrong opinion on a point of contention. e.g. believing that religion is not such a bad thing has lead to people being restricted in the past, despite their otherwise seemingly almost immaculate ideologies. simply being wrong about something that they shouldn't be wrong about. but because they are wrong, rather than debate, ban. a hypothetical example: a socialist who believes that trans people should be considered to be the gender on the birth certificate is banned. yes, they are wrong. but rather than restrict discussion on that topic by that person to the oi forum, they are banned or restricted wholesale. you had people who were otherwise good socialists, but with wrong opinions in certain areas, restricted or banned rather than their opinion around those areas. no they won't learn if they aren't around to learn.

the olde commie club, an interesting look at on line democracy, failed. but it had potential. i blame the administrative team over the years. partly because they simple didn't introduce protections against mob rule. people who had merely contrary or controversial (but still not wrong) opinions got banned. similarly people who didn't break the rules, but merely pissed enough of the wrong people off, banned. (i used to run. i raan and i raan.) then, with the decline of the participatory rule of the forum, so too people left.

i visit occasionally. now what is leading to the decline appears to be the decline. not a single recent thread i can find on catalonia and independence. i used to visit to read informed opinion on world events. no more. (a reminder to visit revforum.com (no longer censored!?) leads to a relevant and interesting discussion. the sort of which used to occur here.)

my 2 cents from someone that maybe someone remembers ...

I stand by my previous analysis. If you look carefully through the old posts on the forum, you'll see where the administration here engaged in large ban waves dating back to 2010, continuing up to the latest ones that officially killed the forum in January then in April of last year. There was always some official sounding reason related either to board security or to the banned people's politics, but these were usually a veneer to cover up the actual reasons. Those underlying reasons were if you were too good at critiquing the politics of the admins, you were toast. If you annoyed the admins too much in other ways ("being uncooperative"), by among other things questioning them too often or too publicly on their administrative actions, you were also toast.

In January of last year, a bunch of Trotskyites were banned ostensibly because their position that revolutionaries had a duty to call for the defense of all Syrians from imperialism, including Syrians who were in right-wing militias like ISIS. The admins called this shite position a form of pro-fascist speech, though they refused to argue the issue out before adopting the policy. Among those banned seemed to be a few of the most active and interesting participants on the site. There was a lot of discontent about it, leading to people who weren't even Trots to leave the forum in disgust, some mods to resign their positions, and a lot of bitterness in how the forum was being run (where absentee admins would parachute in just to ban the people who actually were regular participants, all while never contributing any actual political content themselves, then to ascend back into their palatial tower). This resulted in another ban wave in April where Bixx, Vladimir Innit Lenin, Ell'ill, Art Vandelay, and a host of others were banned.

At that point there was almost nobody else to ban or scapegoat for the forum's problems, and the forum no longer had a critical mass of active, thoughtful contributors to sustain discussions. The result is what you've seen here the past year or so. Per the prior discussion in this thread, the admins and mods still seem to be in denial about it, and think the problem was not with their decisions but instead with the appearance of the forum software, the way the site was branded (too many communist or anarchist symbols), or a long-term trend of users flocking away from message forums and to other social media. So they have taken steps to revive the forum that haven't and won't work: updating the appearance, removing the communist symbols, appointing new admins seemingly on the sole basis of trying to get those promoted to post more and provide the appearance of greater activity. (Like making Rafiq, one of the most notoriously abusive forum users, an admin, in hopes of coaxing him to engage in his litany of long tirades again.)

You can go back and randomly select threads from 2011 or so, when the site seem to be at its peak in terms of activity, and see threads where almost all the dozen or so participants have been banned. That takes a clear toll on any online meeting space, but you have to be around and attentive enough to what's actually happening in the meeting space in order to recognize it as it's happening. The admins were never around, and now the ones that are seem to have serious issues in how they conduct themselves (spamming the forum, gaslighting users, among other things).

[ckaihatsu]

In January of last year, a bunch of Trotskyites were banned ostensibly because their position that revolutionaries had a duty to call for the defense of all Syrians from imperialism, including Syrians who were in right-wing militias like ISIS. The admins called this shite position a form of pro-fascist speech


This makes no political sense whatsoever -- why should *any* revolutionary-minded position defend admittedly *right-wing* people, those in ISIS -- ?

ISIS *is* politically equivalent / congruent with fascism, because of its sectarian clerical authoritarian structure, which is antithetical to progressive civil society (inclusion of social minorities), for starters.

I don't know the RevLeft history *that* well, but I doubt that it would be *Trotskyists* that defended any revolutionary-leftist inclusion of Islamic fundamentalist types like ISIS.

[Bea Arthur]

This makes no political sense whatsoever -- why should *any* revolutionary-minded position defend admittedly *right-wing* people, those in ISIS -- ?

ISIS *is* politically equivalent / congruent with fascism, because of its sectarian clerical authoritarian structure, which is antithetical to progressive civil society (inclusion of social minorities), for starters.

I don't know the RevLeft history *that* well, but I doubt that it would be *Trotskyists* that defended any revolutionary-leftist inclusion of Islamic fundamentalist types like ISIS.

Ckaihatsu, I don't agree with the Trotskyite position, but I know enough about revolutionary politics to know that the position they were defending was the position of Lenin and the Bolsheviks. When imperialism was attacking a country in the third world, they had the position of defending all those in that country being attacked, regardless of their politics. Somehow this was twisted into saying that Trotskyites wanted ISIS to win in Syria. And since ISIS was supposedly fascist (which also betrays a highly inaccurate and distorted understanding of what fascism is), this meant that Trotskyites upholding the comintern line on imperialism were supporting fascism.

The administrators did not seem to be aware of the provenance of the position being defended by the banned members, and established, without any prior public discussion, the policy that anybody who had the Bolsheviks position on imperialism were to be banned from the board on the basis of no-platform. Lenin would have been banned by the revleft administration. That's like the administrators of Stormfront esetablishing policies that would have seen Hitler banned from their forum. And we wonder why people aren't banging down the door to come discuss revolutionary politics on "revleft"?

[Bea Arthur]

The timing of the bans should also be mentioned because it is a classic illustration of what I was saying about ban waves. There was a thread about some socialist group that an admin belonged to, and a few Trots went into the thread and criticized their position on some issue I can't recall. So the admin started a thread about the Trot position on ISIS, so that Trots would post the Trot position. The admins then went behind closed doors and came out with a policy they retroactively applied in order to ban the members who coincidentally had just criticized the admin's socialist organization. The actual reason behind the pretext for the bans was crystal clear, and it disgusted a lot of people, including me and other non-Trots. Some quit, some had their accounts deactivated, and others requested they be de-modded. An entire (major) leftist tendency was de facto banned from the forum, while weird left liberals and social democrats like you, peddling magic crystals and spurious health claims, are made admins! When you go around looking for reasons to ban people who criticize you forcefully for your politics, and you don't have any actual awareness of adherence to revolutionary politics, you're going to end up with a forum ostensibly for the revolutionary left, but where revolutionary leftists aren't really welcome. It's like trying to set up a shop to sell magazine subscriptions in a community where people are illiterate.

[ckaihatsu]

Ckaihatsu, I don't agree with the Trotskyite position, but I know enough about revolutionary politics to know that the position they were defending was the position of Lenin and the Bolsheviks. When imperialism was attacking a country in the third world, they had the position of defending all those in that country being attacked, regardless of their politics.


But this line -- whether historically true or not -- is politically *populist*, at best.

Of course revolutionaries want all regular, everyday people to be safe, but that *humanitarian*-oriented principle doesn't address *politics* at all, such as how a working-class-based approach -- or, failing that, a geopolitical one -- can be appropriately applied to the objective situation, and implemented.

So if we see that the international faction supporting ISIS is Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the U.S., then politically there needs to be a *stop* to that because ISIS isn't a legitimate / valid nation-state and should not be supported as one. The U.S. finally shifted to not-going after Assad as a policy objective, and it worked within the SDF against ISIS, but there are now reports of U.S. forces being perfectly comfortable within remaining ISIS territory and not-finishing the complete shutdown of ISIS military capability.





Somehow this was twisted into saying that Trotskyites wanted ISIS to win in Syria.


I *highly* doubt this political characterization of Trotskyists, and I haven't heard any supporting evidence in this purported vein. (I'll remain open to any that can be provided.)





And since ISIS was supposedly fascist (which also betrays a highly inaccurate and distorted understanding of what fascism is),


Would you elaborate on this? (My position, as already stated, is that religious fundamentalism *is* basically equivalent to the politics of fascism.)





this meant that Trotskyites upholding the comintern line on imperialism were supporting fascism.


I *will* note that I saw very little at the time (2011-present) regarding any kind of principled positioning on the issue of ISIS, from the soft-left or even from the revolutionary left -- something I found / consider-to-be problematic.





The administrators did not seem to be aware of the provenance of the position being defended by the banned members, and established, without any prior public discussion, the policy that anybody who had the Bolsheviks position on imperialism were to be banned from the board on the basis of no-platform.


Your claimed RevLeft history aside, I don't think that 'the Bolsheviks position on imperialism' is the best formulation for this present-day situation -- you may want to just say pro- or anti-ISIS, since that's what's at-stake here.

You seem to be indicating that ISIS is just a regular dot on the map, when in fact they're *combatants* against the established bourgeois order, from the right. That's why it can be said that their politics are tantamount to fascism.

If posters weren't directly addressing the ISIS issue on the board and/or indicated any kind of nominal support for it, then that would be appropriate grounds for banning since ISIS is equivalent to fascism.





Lenin would have been banned by the revleft administration.


On what grounds, exactly?





That's like the administrators of Stormfront esetablishing policies that would have seen Hitler banned from their forum. And we wonder why people aren't banging down the door to come discuss revolutionary politics on "revleft"?


Your lackluster rhetoric aside, you really should watch your step at this point -- the board's policy regarding one's position around ISIS hasn't changed, as far as I know, so please don't jeopardize yourself by implying any kind of tolerance for Islamic fundamentalism.





Policy on endorsement of Daesh, aka the Islamic State, ISIS, ISIL etc




This announcement is to clarify the Revleft.com policy of no platform for fascism, which includes a strict prohibition of any form of expressed support for or endorsement of the fascist terrorist organization Daesh, aka the Islamic State, ISIS, ISIL etc on our forums.

Any such sentiment expressed on RevLeft, (whether it be from an individual or that expressed by any group), be it an outright endorsement of Daesh ideology or the slightest apologism for the organizations actions for any reason, (including 'anti-imperialism'), will lead to an instant and permanent banning of the user in question regardless of their stated political ideology or motives.



No Pasaran!




https://www.revleft.space/vb/threads/194996-Policy-on-endorsement-of-Daesh-aka-the-Islamic-State-ISIS-ISIL-etc?p=2864174#post2864174

[Bea Arthur]

You ignore my main points and in true revleft admin tradition, distort what I am saying, it seems to try to set me up to be banned (which is consistent with how you've shifted to calling my condemnation of your flagrant spamming of the board "spam" rather than an attempt to stop it).

I am not saying that I agree with Lenin's position on imperialism or that I agree with the Trot position of defending all Syrians from US attack. I am saying that the Trotskyite position that got those members banned was just a pretty clear cut application of the early comintern's position on anti-imperialism, which was for defense of all people in third world countries attacked by imperialist countries, without any political lithmus tests or qualifiers. According to that line, Qatar or Saudi arabia probably wouldn't qualify as imperialist, since Lenin meant some more by it than just a country that tries to attack or politically subvert another country.

It's fine if you think that position is "populist" or wrong. I was just pointing out that the world's most famous revolutionary would be banned from a web site professing to be for revolutionary leftists, because it was his methodology and principles being applied to the situation in Syria. There is something very deeply troubling that you do not seem to have the least bit of familiarity with the topic. I do, since I am constantly bumping into Trotskyites all the time in my own political work north of the border.

So to sum up for the simple minded: Lenin had the position that not all countries were imperialist, only the dominant centers of finance capital who seek to export capital through colonial and semi-colonial methods. He advocated defense for all people in non-imperialist countries that came under attack from imperialist ones. I don't agree with Lenin's position on imperialism, but that is the position that the Trotskyites were applying, and they were banned for it. It follows logically that Lenin himself would have been banned. Fine. One less sexist in my eyes, but the topic of this thread is why the site "isn't coming back," and the answer is that it's not, because the people who run this place market it as a place for revolutionary leftism while seemingly being oblivious to the history and traditions and politics of revolutionary leftism, to the point where they are unfamiliar with Lenin's writings on imperialism or how they would be applied to places around the world today.

It's a fine place to read up on healing crystals, though.

[some-loser]

19794

Hey ya'll, check out this hammer and sickle tattoo I got a while back. Is that enough to prove my radical credentials like one admin here requires?

But oh wait, I must not be a communist, afterall, I was banned for being a "fascist sympathizer" by people whose grasp on revolutionary theory/history is about as tenuous on their grasp on reality.

The fact that there are still admins/mods here maintaining the absurd ban waves didnt lead to the current state of this forum is as deluded as those simultaneously maintaining they're going to make revleft great again. It's a shame, since this place was once a decent venue for discussion (one, that others here are right, isn't available at places like Facebook or Reddit due to the format) but that time has long since passed and the admins have no one to blame but themselves.

The fact that Rafiq - quite possibly the most abusive, I'll-adjusted poster on the history of this site - is now an admin, is testament to how low this forum has sunk. I say good riddance.

[ckaihatsu]

You ignore my main points and in true revleft admin tradition, distort what I am saying, it seems to try to set me up to be banned (which is consistent with how you've shifted to calling my condemnation of your flagrant spamming of the board "spam" rather than an attempt to stop it).


Don't expect any sympathetic / exceptional consideration or treatment of where you're coming from -- you've been quite *unkind* in your communications with me throughout, and that kind of thing is not easily overlooked or forgotten.





I am not saying that I agree with Lenin's position on imperialism or that I agree with the Trot position of defending all Syrians from US attack. I am saying that the Trotskyite position that got those members banned was just a pretty clear cut application of the early comintern's position on anti-imperialism, which was for defense of all people in third world countries attacked by imperialist countries, without any political lithmus tests or qualifiers.


If by 'Third World' you mean those that are *vulnerable* to imperialist attacks, then that would generally be a correct line, supporting internationally-oppressed nation-states, in favor of their own self-determination / national-liberation -- consider Syria as a shining example here. (Also Puerto Rico, given its current situation.)

However, if this line would consider the *Islamic State* to be an 'oppressed' nation-state, then that would be an incorrect application of this 'self-determination' principle, since it has *not* been progressive in any sense of the term. Taking-up the Islamic State for political support would be in violation of RevLeft policy, as already mentioned.





According to that line, Qatar or Saudi arabia probably wouldn't qualify as imperialist, since Lenin meant some more by it than just a country that tries to attack or politically subvert another country.


Qatar and Saudi Arabia *are* imperialist -- whatever faulty reasoning / conclusions you make -- because they've aligned with Western imperialist countries, and have aided in attacks on lesser countries in the region, like Bahrain and Yemen. Internally their civil societies are *not* progressive, but rather are *reactionary*.





It's fine if you think that position is "populist" or wrong. I was just pointing out that the world's most famous revolutionary would be banned from a web site professing to be for revolutionary leftists, because it was his methodology and principles being applied to the situation in Syria.


This is more faulty reasoning -- you're saying that Lenin's 'Third World' 'self-determination' principle *would* positively apply to Syria, but then you're also saying that he would be on-the-outs regarding RevLeft's policy on ISIS. ISIS / the Islamic State would *not* be covered as a valid case for nationhood status / national-liberation, because it's *not* neutral or oppressed, internationally -- it's Islamic fundamentalist, domestically reactionary / fascist with Sharia law, and internationally combative.





There is something very deeply troubling that you do not seem to have the least bit of familiarity with the topic. I do, since I am constantly bumping into Trotskyites all the time in my own political work north of the border.

So to sum up for the simple minded: Lenin had the position that not all countries were imperialist, only the dominant centers of finance capital who seek to export capital through colonial and semi-colonial methods. He advocated defense for all people in non-imperialist countries that came under attack from imperialist ones. I don't agree with Lenin's position on imperialism, but that is the position that the Trotskyites were applying, and they were banned for it.


I can't confirm that you're correct in your recounting of alleged RevLeft history here.





It follows logically that Lenin himself would have been banned.


No, it doesn't. (See above.)





Fine. One less sexist in my eyes, but the topic of this thread is why the site "isn't coming back," and the answer is that it's not, because the people who run this place market it as a place for revolutionary leftism while seemingly being oblivious to the history and traditions and politics of revolutionary leftism, to the point where they are unfamiliar with Lenin's writings on imperialism or how they would be applied to places around the world today.

It's a fine place to read up on healing crystals, though.


You continue to show a profound *bias*, preferring to slander my character on the basis of some health-related posts of mine that you summarily dismiss, without any knowledge of any of it. This is just prejudicial opinionating, which is all your 'spam-defining' faction seems to do here.

[Bea Arthur]

The users who were banned did not say the Islamic state was an oppressed nation. Neither would Lenin. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about, and are embarrassing yourself. The thread where the Trotskyites were banned is easily located on the forum. I advise you try to read and understand everything that was said in it before talking about it. Stop accusing others of faulty reasoning when you have shown no evidence in this thread that you are even capable of functional literacy.

[ckaihatsu]

The users who were banned did not say the Islamic state was an oppressed nation. Neither would Lenin. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about, and are embarrassing yourself.


Please stop with the antagonizing behavior -- it's un-comradely, and is off-putting.

You could be more *constructive*, such as filling-in the blanks where you may happen to see them.

You *were* implying that the Islamic State could be seen as an oppressed nation, which would be a politically wrong conclusion:





I am not saying that I agree with Lenin's position on imperialism or that I agree with the Trot position of defending all Syrians from US attack. I am saying that the Trotskyite position that got those members banned was just a pretty clear cut application of the early comintern's position on anti-imperialism, which was for defense of all people in third world countries attacked by imperialist countries, without any political lithmus tests or qualifiers.


---





The thread where the Trotskyites were banned is easily located on the forum. I advise you try to read and understand everything that was said in it before talking about it. Stop accusing others of faulty reasoning when you have shown no evidence in this thread that you are even capable of functional literacy.


And you should stop making blanket conclusions in the abstract about past exchanges -- in line with being more *constructive*, why don't you provide relevant links to support your contentions, like footnotes -- ?

Also, you're relying on exaggeration again, for a personal insult that is unwarranted.

[Bea Arthur]

Stop making shit up, then when called on it, playing the victim. *That* is off-putting. Where did I "imply the Islamic State was an oppressed nation"? First of all, I was describing the Trotskyite position, which is not my position, as I have told you repeatedly. And secondly, their position was that all Syrians, regardless of political stripes, merited defense from imperialist attack. So that would have included Syrians in the FSA, the SAA, ISIS, and any other militia or military outfit. This idea that anybody said ISIS was an oppressed nation is something you've constructed in your mind, and it seriously calls into question your ability to have even the most elementary of discussions. This isn't a "blanket conclusion" about what was said in the threat. It's what was actually said in the thread. You have a terrible habit of trying to call into question basic points of fact by pretending these are "opinions" or "generalizations." It shows what a rat-ass little manipulator you are, and that you can't be trusted.

[ckaihatsu]

Stop making shit up, then when called on it, playing the victim. *That* is off-putting. Where did I "imply the Islamic State was an oppressed nation"? First of all, I was describing the Trotskyite position, which is not my position, as I have told you repeatedly. And secondly, their position was that all Syrians, regardless of political stripes, merited defense from imperialist attack. So that would have included Syrians in the FSA, the SAA, ISIS, and any other militia or military outfit. This idea that anybody said ISIS was an oppressed nation is something you've constructed in your mind, and it seriously calls into question your ability to have even the most elementary of discussions. This isn't a "blanket conclusion" about what was said in the threat. It's what was actually said in the thread. You have a terrible habit of trying to call into question basic points of fact by pretending these are "opinions" or "generalizations." It shows what a rat-ass little manipulator you are, and that you can't be trusted.


Your conclusion about me is incorrect -- instead of trying to generalize your value-judgments to include my whole personhood and character, why not just use a better-practice and continue to address the active subject matter itself -- ?

If you feel I've made an incorrect value judgment on something you've said, just speak to that. My interpretation of the excerpt I commented on is *my* own, and you are welcome to critique my critique. Please don't get frustrated and insult me -- just show me where perhaps *my* critique may be flawed. That's the benefit of discussion, etc.


Generalizations-Characterizations



http://s6.postimg.org/rtrvqqoz5/2714844340046342459_Quxppf_fs.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/dakqpbvu5/full/)

[Bea Arthur]

Stop trying to change the topic. It's a *fact* that nobody here or in any other thread on revleft said anything about the Islamic State being an "oppressed nation." Nothing they have said implies this. If you have evidence to the contrary, you should provide it. You won't, because you made it up. That's what you do. You make shit up. You engage in all sorts of shady behaviours, like gaslighting, deflecting, victim-playing and victim-blaming. It's extremely manipulative and disgusting. People are getting sick of it, so don't expect that your complaints are going to do you any good here.

[ckaihatsu]

Stop trying to change the topic. It's a *fact* that nobody here or in any other thread on revleft said anything about the Islamic State being an "oppressed nation." Nothing they have said implies this. If you have evidence to the contrary, you should provide it.


I'm *not* trying to change the topic -- you're not addressing the critique I've made, which is this:





You *were* implying that the Islamic State could be seen as an oppressed nation, which would be a politically wrong conclusion:





I am not saying that I agree with Lenin's position on imperialism or that I agree with the Trot position of defending all Syrians from US attack. I am saying that the Trotskyite position that got those members banned was just a pretty clear cut application of the early comintern's position on anti-imperialism, which was for defense of all people in third world countries attacked by imperialist countries, without any political lithmus tests or qualifiers.


---





You won't, because you made it up. That's what you do. You make shit up. You engage in all sorts of shady behaviours, like gaslighting, deflecting, victim-playing and victim-blaming. It's extremely manipulative and disgusting. People are getting sick of it, so don't expect that your complaints are going to do you any good here.


I'm *not* complaining -- I'm saying that you're *dramatizing* the contributions I've made, and that you've wantonly maligned my character instead of just continuing with the subject matter at-hand.

[Bea Arthur]

Not sure if you're being deliberately obtuse so as to gaslight me or if you seriously aren't even reading my posts. I addressed your "critique," which is based on a fabrication you claim is implied. I responded by asking where this was implied. You haven't stated, because you can't. There was and is no such implication, anymore than saying we should defend all manual laborers in a third world country being attacked by imperialism implies that the bricklayers trade union is an "oppressed nation."

[some-loser]

ckaihatsu:

1) Claims BA said ISIS could be seen as an oppressed nation

2) Posts quote from BA as proof that she said this, despite the fact that no where in the quote does she actually say that

3) nods head as if he's just made a point, then refuses to acknowledge what's happened when he's called out

---

The fact that you're now an admin here, ckaihatsu, speak to how little the owner of this site gives a fuck about it - I mean, they literally banned scores and scores of good posters only to hand over the keys to this place to a guy who peddles conspiracy theories, magic crystals type shit, incomprehensible graphs, and who's way of engaging with people indicates an astonishing inability to be socially-aware and a fixation on engaging in unwanted and unappreciated behaviours (this goes back years, it isn't just recent).

The fact that every single active user on this site (except, maybe, minus one) has called out your behaviour and pointed to the ways in which it is problematic, yet you refuse to change anything about it, makes you an asshole. How many more people have to say 'hey ckaihatsu, we don't really like your behaviour, could you change it,' before you show a modicum of self-reflection and begin to wonder 'oh, maybe they have a point and aren't just motivated by [insert your weird persecution theories here]."

[ckaihatsu]

Not sure if you're being deliberately obtuse so as to gaslight me or if you seriously aren't even reading my posts. I addressed your "critique," which is based on a fabrication you claim is implied. I responded by asking where this was implied. You haven't stated, because you can't. There was and is no such implication, anymore than saying we should defend all manual laborers in a third world country being attacked by imperialism implies that the bricklayers trade union is an "oppressed nation."


See, you're not even bothering to handle the subject matter -- you just want to be one-sided and make *pronouncements* over what is spam and what is not, then *dramatize* and whine about anyone who disagrees with your opinions.

There's no conversation here, much less any even-handed discussion. Just don't even bother, you'll sleep better.





ckaihatsu:

1) Claims BA said ISIS could be seen as an oppressed nation

2) Posts quote from BA as proof that she said this, despite the fact that no where in the quote does she actually say that

3) nods head as if he's just made a point, then refuses to acknowledge what's happened when he's called out

---

The fact that you're now an admin here, ckaihatsu, speak to how little the owner of this site gives a fuck about it - I mean, they literally banned scores and scores of good posters only to hand over the keys to this place to a guy who peddles conspiracy theories, magic crystals type shit, incomprehensible graphs, and who's way of engaging with people indicates an astonishing inability to be socially-aware and a fixation on engaging in unwanted and unappreciated behaviours (this goes back years, it isn't just recent).

The fact that every single active user on this site (except, maybe, minus one) has called out your behaviour and pointed to the ways in which it is problematic, yet you refuse to change anything about it, makes you an asshole. How many more people have to say 'hey ckaihatsu, we don't really like your behaviour, could you change it,' before you show a modicum of self-reflection and begin to wonder 'oh, maybe they have a point and aren't just motivated by [insert your weird persecution theories here]."


I *have* had to change, due to changes in board policy, thanks to your faction's uncontrolled opinion-making and runaway bids for hegemony here.

I'm *not* an asshole just for disagreeing with your faction's opinion / position, something you and yours just can't seem to understand -- how could *you* be wrong -- ? -- !


x D

[some-loser]

We will Make RevLeft Great Again, just see ;)

Yo, Sentinel, it's pretty clear you don't care about this site, since you never come to it, but if you could see fit to take time out of your busy schedule of libeling Trotskyists as fascist-sympathizers to come explain to me how making Rafiq (abusive) and Chris (incomprehensible, out of touch, manitpulative) admins, plays into your out-of-touch-with-reality plan where you save revleft and make it great again, that would be appreciated. Thanks.

[Bea Arthur]

See, you're not even bothering to handle the subject matter -- you just want to be one-sided and make *pronouncements* over what is spam and what is not, then *dramatize* and whine about anyone who disagrees with your opinions.

There's no conversation here, much less any even-handed discussion. Just don't even bother, you'll sleep better.





I *have* had to change, due to changes in board policy, thanks to your faction's uncontrolled opinion-making and runaway bids for hegemony here.

I'm *not* an asshole just for disagreeing with your faction's opinion / position, something you and yours just can't seem to understand -- how could *you* be wrong -- ? -- !


x D

In your previous post, you faulted me for not addressing your "critique" about Syria (which I had addressed two times previously). Then when I address it for a third time, you don't even so much as mention Syria or the Islamic state, and make a sweeping pronouncement about how unfair I am in conversation, all while criticizing me for supposedly making "sweeping pronouncements."

This is what you do, and why so many here have speculated on you having some kind of mental health issue.

[ckaihatsu]

In your previous post, you faulted me for not addressing your "critique" about Syria (which I had addressed two times previously). Then when I address it for a third time, you don't even so much as mention Syria or the Islamic state, and make a sweeping pronouncement about how unfair I am in conversation, all while criticizing me for supposedly making "sweeping pronouncements."

This is what you do, and why so many here have speculated on you having some kind of mental health issue.


This isn't even appropriate -- you and your faction use the tactic of *bullshit*, to make claims that aren't even valid.

You'd rather use rhetoric and *hyperbole*, instead of addressing the issues. For this I cannot relieve you, since you're starting with a basis that's disingenuous.

[Bea Arthur]

This isn't even appropriate -- you and your faction use the tactic of *bullshit*, to make claims that aren't even valid.

You'd rather use rhetoric and *hyperbole*, instead of addressing the issues. For this I cannot relieve you, since you're starting with a basis that's disingenuous.

Two posts now, and still not one word about my correcting him on his supposed "critique" on Syria and ISIS, which he earlier accused me of not addressing. Shameful!!

[BIXX]

Jesus Christ, Chris, please stop being a little shit. This outright denying of facts that can be proven true just by looking at your posts a few hours earlier is total bullshit.

[ckaihatsu]

Two posts now, and still not one word about my correcting him on his supposed "critique" on Syria and ISIS, which he earlier accused me of not addressing. Shameful!!





Jesus Christ, Chris, please stop being a little shit. This outright denying of facts that can be proven true just by looking at your posts a few hours earlier is total bullshit.


Okay, I'm going to take a page from *your* playbook and now you're *ignored*.

[Bea Arthur]

Okay, I'm going to take a page from *your* playbook and now you're *ignored*.

Make that three posts. This guy has some serious issues, and I hope he can resolve them some day.

- - - Updated - - -


Yo, Sentinel, it's pretty clear you don't care about this site, since you never come to it, but if you could see fit to take time out of your busy schedule of libeling Trotskyists as fascist-sympathizers to come explain to me how making Rafiq (abusive) and Chris (incomprehensible, out of touch, manitpulative) admins, plays into your out-of-touch-with-reality plan where you save revleft and make it great again, that would be appreciated. Thanks.

According to his profile, he hasn't logged on in months.

[ckaihatsu]

Make that three posts. This guy has some serious issues, and I hope he can resolve them some day.


That's really fucking cute -- you continue to use *psychologizing*, an ad-hominem attack, as a substitute for dealing with the *political* issues that are in front of you.

[Bea Arthur]

That's really fucking cute -- you continue to use *psychologizing*, an ad-hominem attack, as a substitute for dealing with the *political* issues that are in front of you.

Not as cute as how you whined about how I supposedly didn't address the substance of your fabrication about Syria (when I actually already had), then when I repeated myself on it, you have studiously refused to even utter the word Syria. Endearing behaviour!

[ckaihatsu]

Not as cute as how you whined about how I supposedly didn't address the substance of your fabrication about Syria (when I actually already had), then when I repeated myself on it, you have studiously refused to even utter the word Syria. Endearing behaviour!


This is an outright falsehood and fabrication -- you're trying to make local political hay out of it instead of responding to where I actually am with my politics.

[some-loser]

This is an outright falsehood and fabrication -- you're trying to make local political hay out of it instead of responding to where I actually am with my politics.

Dude, who the fuck do you think you're kidding? We can literally all go back one page in this thread and see that BA is telling the truth...

[ckaihatsu]

Dude, who the fuck do you think you're kidding? We can literally all go back one page in this thread and see that BA is telling the truth...


I'm *not trying* to kid anyone -- what don't you understand about *disagreement* -- ?

Do you really think that your faction can just steamroll over anyone who happens to disagree with it -- ?

And you call yourself political...(!)

[Bea Arthur]

What has angered people in this thread and around the forum is not just that you spam and bog the forum down with tangentially related liberal political emails you signed up to receive and wrongly feel, despite what practically everybody here has told you, others on the forum want to read. What angers people is your manipulative approach to discussion.

In the last page you were all hot on talking about the Trotskyites who were banned for bs reasons. You wanted to talk about it because you thought you had an ace up your sleeve, the fabrication that the Trotskyites "implied" ISIS was an oppressed nation. I corrected you multiple times on this, and when you realized you had no leg to stand on, you have suddenly dropped any discussion of the issue and pretended the conversation never happened. Now somebody else has jumped in and pointed this out, asking you who you were kidding, and you're rambling on about secret factions and stuff.

This is not a normal or healthy way of trying to interact with people, chris, even online. Normally I think most people here would just get an admin to prevent you from behaving in these clearly fucked up ways, but the people who run the forum are so out of touch with reality that they decided to make you an admin. So we are left with two options, either leaving the forum to avoid your bullshit spam, or trying to get you to understand through discussion that what you're doing is not cool and isn't even a good idea from the perspective of your own professed goals.

[Ele'ill]

admins aren't allowed to ignore users

[Ele'ill]

also lol at thread title, no its not coming back yet it's going deeper into the abyss apparently

[Tim Redd]

And this goes for the left in general. The internet can be a hostile place, a defensive left can be even more hostile. It's a bad combo that I think we should try and counteract when possible.

I've always thought we should work to be more open and welcoming, but different people have different uses for a site like this: left-gossip, theory discussion, promotion of a view, etc.

For me, sites like this helped me to develop and challenge my political views as a new radical

To promote open discussion by newbies and advanced people, RevLeft can definitely do without intemperate, childish, swear word flooded posts which in some cases are even given by moderators. It is a wonder to me that people who think they are true revolutionaries are more than willing to be nasty cads and boars in their debating style.

[ZippyJuan]

I think Reddit is a jumbled mess. I also think there are more forums these days, so audiences are spread thinner. But anyway, I am here!:)