che,castro,stalin,mao

[leftist manson]

now here is a topic that is going to cause much contoversy
but how do you guys differentiate between the importance, goodwill , leading capabilities or goodness.
you make your own views through active philosiophical consideration or just buy western capitalist lies
like most guys on this forum are avidly antistalinist and anti mao but consider castro a great guy
how did they come to the conclusion
like cappies have significantly demonized castro also
so what are the main reasons most guys/gals have the political opinions they have

[Saint-Just]

I believe I have acquired a Marxist consciousness, a revolutionary consciousness. Therefore I can identify many ideas that are a product of bourgeois society. So, when looking at societies through history I can look at them aloof of any prescribed manner. Doing this means one can evaluate Stalin, Mao and Castro. Of course a lot of us on this site believe that only we are correct.

[h&s]

Personally, I do not think we should base our theorys on past leaders, but instead base them on the current political situation.

[redstar2000]

There is a pronounced tendency in class society to reduce ideas to the level of personalities -- a variant of the "great man" theory of history.

That tendency strongly affects much of the left as well. For example, neither Marx nor Engels ever used the term "Marxism" to describe their ideas.

Come to think of it, I don't think Lenin ever used the word "Leninism" or the phrase "Marxism-Leninism". Nor can I recall Stalin ever using the word "Stalinism" or Trotsky ever using the word "Trotskyism" or Mao ever using the word "Maoism".

However well intentioned, it's really a form of idolitry...a way to emotionally identify with a (largely imaginary) personality without having to spend much time or effort trying to understand, much less critique, their ideas.

To their credit, most anarchists seem not to have fallen into this ritualized behavior; I've never heard of anarchists calling themselves "Kropotkinists" or "Bakuninists", etc.

It's a practice we could learn from.

But we probably won't.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[percept¡on]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 10:52 AM

However well intentioned, it's really a form of idolitry...a way to emotionally identify with a (largely imaginary) personality without having to spend much time or effort trying to understand, much less critique, their ideas.

Word. Hero-worship is abhorrent. Not that we can't have 'role models', but no man should be heroized.

[h&s]

There's nothing wrong with calling yourself a Marxist, or a Leninist, just as long as you come up with your own ideas and just use them as an influence.
For example, I had all of my Marxist ideas before I had even heard of Karl Marx, hearoing about him just put them all together and made me realise where I was politicaly.
Without Marx I would still have all of my views, I just wouldn't be doing anything with them, so I am proud to call myself a Marxist.

[Raisa]

Some of the time it is like a personality cult, but alot of times i think people just use those words to be specific.
I find it stupid to submit your intellect to one dead man's writings. They all have their times for good ideas, but their not in your life. As much as we would like, nothing comes with a handbook and its up to us to look around and think about things for ourselves.

[cubist]

on this subject

MAO, mao is the one i need to read up on infact if someoen can give me a link to a good mao site i will check him out i ave been meaning to do that fpr some time,




Raisa :) your point about us as the new socialist needing to investigate and develope our own manefesto based on the needs of thw orking class today, this is of upmost importance seeing as the implemenation of true marxism is impossible without the collapse of capitalism which i fear may take too long,

[DaCuBaN]

However well intentioned, it's really a form of idolitry...a way to emotionally identify with a (largely imaginary) personality without having to spend much time or effort trying to understand, much less critique, their ideas

Well said!
Communism has the same 'blind followers' that capitalism is plagued by. It's one thing that's always had me interested in anarchism.... you never meet a dumb anarchist!

I've never really understood why people feel this desire to classify everything... It used to be joked that it was a british trait, but it seems more rampant than that.

If anything it's simply drawing boundaries so you can trip over them.

[Salvador Allende]

Che, Castro, Koba and Mao. To me they are all heroes, so I differentiate on how much they actually did for the people and how many people their policies affected for the good. Also, time and circumstance has to be taken into consideration. Weighing in is key, you have to weigh the good against the bad and not completely ignore one or the other.

[elijahcraig]

I like all of them, but don't consider them heroes.

[Hate Is Art]

I'm not one for labels (but seem to have them forced upon me) and will willingly agree with and disgregard bit's from most of the major Communist writers.

And it just happens that I mainly agree with Trotsky, Lennin and Marx, once you have accepted a label it is hard to lose it though (although I used to be an Anarchist and a Conservative :()

[Dawood]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2004, 05:31 PM
It's one thing that's always had me interested in anarchism.... you never meet a dumb anarchist!


You obiously don't meet a lot of anarchists. They are worse than leninists. (And I say that as an anarchist... well... more anarchist than anything else atleast)

[Misodoctakleidist]

che,castro,stalin,mao, how you guys differentiate

I presume they multiply the term of the unknown which they are differentiating with respect to by it's indicie and subtract one from the value of the indicie.

[gaf]

reply to" Personally, I do not think we should base our theorys on past leaders, but instead base them on the current political situation"
you' re right be with your time no bible what ever color it may be!!!!

don't get stupide, just be yourself

[Essential Insignificance]

reply to" Personally, I do not think we should base our theorys on past leaders, but instead base them on the current political situation"
you' re right be with your time no bible what ever color it may be!!!!

don't get stupide, just be yourself

I’m not too sure what you’re trying to say here, and if I‘m belying it or not; but in orientation to the quote you took, I wish to comment.

Why should we not "base" our theories and practical motives on the teachings of others…Marx and Engel’s and others, Lenin, Trotsky, Mao, Guevara, etc -if you like-, but particularly the former two, whom have done a lot of the "hard work" for "us" theoretically; and it would be remarkably brainless to pass it off, to the "dust bin" of history.

I’m not saying that revision and modifaction is not needed, and that Marx and Engel’s got everything entirely "right"; but they sure, as it seems from historical events, theorised what would happen if some practical intention’s were to be put into practice and the different "crises" the capitalist nations would go through.

[Sideshow Luke Perry]

Marx made passing reference to it, saying once (not sure if I'm quoting exactly) "all I know is that I am no Marxist". Trotsky talked about Leninism quite a bit, and may have referred to Trotskyism in his later work, but I'm not sure.

[Comrade Raz]

I think its important that we take good and bad things from these people. We should not ignore them, instead take the good stuff they did or said and try to build a greater ideolagy.