Our Revolution

[Led Zeppelin]

I have lately been glancing through Sukhanov's notes on the revolution. What strikes one most is the pedantry of all our petty-bourgeois Democrats and of all heroes of the Second International. Apart from the fact that they are all extremely fainthearted, that when it comes to the minutest deviation from the German model [of Socialism] even the best of them fortified themselves with reservations — apart from this characteristic, which is common to all petty-bourgeois Democrats and has been abundantly manifested by them throughout the revolution, what strikes one is their slavish imitation of the past.

They all call themselves Marxists, but their conception of Marxism is impossibly pedantic. They have completely failed to understand what is decisive in Marxism, namely, its revolutionary dialectics. They have even absolutely failed to understand Marx's plain statements that in times of revolution the utmost flexibility is demanded,[A] and have even failed to notice, for instance, the statements Marx made in his letters — I think it was in 1856 — expressing the hope of combining the peasant war in Germany, which might create a revolutionary situation, with the working-class movement[B] — they avoid even this plain statement and walk around and about it like a cat around a bowl of hot porridge.

Their conduct betrays them as cowardly reformists who are afraid to deviate from the bourgeoisie, let alone break with it, at the same time they disguised their cowardice with the wildest rhetoric and braggartry. But what strikes one in all of them even from the purely theoretical point of view is their utter inability to grasp the following Marxist considerations: up to now they have seen capitalism and bourgeois democracy in Western Europe follow a definite path of development, and cannot conceive that this path can be taken as a model only mutatis mutandis, only with certain amendments (quite insignificant from the standpoint of the general development of world history).

First — the revolution connected with the first imperialist world war. Such revolution was bound to reveal new features, or variations, resulting from the war itself, the world has never seen such a war in such a situation. We find that since the war the bourgeoisie of the wealthiest countries have to this day been unable to restore "normal" bourgeois relations. Yet our reformists — petty-bourgeois who make a show of being revolutionaries — believed, and still believe, that normal bourgeois relations are the limit (thus far shalt thou go and no farther). And even their conception of "normal" is extremely stereotyped and narrow.

Secondly, they are complete strangers to the idea that while the development of world history as a whole follows general laws it is by no means precluded, but, on the contrary, presumed, that certain periods of development may display peculiarities in either the form or the sequence of this development. For instance, it has not even occurred to them that because Russia stands on the borderline between civilized countries and the countries which this war has for the first time definitely brought into the orbit of civilization — all the Oriental, non-European countries — she could and was, indeed, bound to reveal certain distinguishing features; although these, of course, are in keeping with the general line of world development, they distinguish her revolution from those which took place in the West European countries and introduce certain partial innovations as the revolution moves on to the countries of the East.

Infinitely stereotyped, for instance, is the argument they learned by rote during the development of West-European Social-Democracy, namely, that we are not yet ripe for socialism, but as certain "learned" gentleman among them put it, the objective economic premises for socialism do not exist in our country. Does it not occur to any of them to ask: what about the people that found itself in a revolutionary situation such as that created during the first imperialist war? Might it not, influenced by the hopelessness of its situation, fling itself into a struggle that would offer it at least some chance of securing conditions for the further development of civilization that were somewhat unusual?

"The development of the productive forces of Russia has not yet attained the level that makes socialism possible." All the heroes of the Second International, including, of course, Sukhanov, beat the drums about this proposition. They keep harping on this incontrovertible proposition in a thousand different keys, and think that it is decisive criterion of our revolution.

But what if the situation, which drew Russia into the imperialist world war that involved every more or less influential West European country and made her a witness of the eve of the revolutions maturing or partly already begun in the East, gave rise to circumstances that put Russia and her development in a position which enabled us to achieve precisely that combination of a "peasant war" with the working-class movement suggested in 1856 by no less a Marxist than Marx himself as a possible prospect for Prussia?

What if the complete hopelessness of the situation, by stimulating the efforts of the workers and peasants tenfold, offered us the opportunity to create the fundamental requisites of civilization in a different way from that of the West European countries? Has that altered the general line of development of world history? Has that altered the basic relations between the basic classes of all the countries that are being, or have been, drawn into the general course of world history?

If a definite level of culture is required for the building of socialism (although nobody can say just what that definite "level of culture" is, for it differs in every Western European country), why cannot we began by first achieving the prerequisites for that definite level of culture in a revolutionary way, and then, with the aid of the workers' and peasants' government and Soviet system, proceed to overtake the other nations?

You say that civilization is necessary for the building of socialism. Very good. But why could we not first create such prerequisites of civilization in our country by the expulsion of the landowners and the Russian capitalists, and then start moving toward socialism? Where, in what books, have you read that such variations of the customary historical sequence of events are impermissible or impossible?

Napoleon, I think, wrote: "On s'engage et puis ... on voit." rendered freely this means: "First engage in a serious battle and then see what happens." Well, we did first engage in a serious battle in October 1917, and then saw such details of development (from the standpoint of world history they were certainly details) as the Brest peace, the New Economic Policy, and so forth. And now there can be no doubt that in the main we have been victorious.

Our Sukhanovs, not to mention Social-Democrats still farther to the right, never even dream that revolutions cannot be made any other way. Our European philistines never even dream that the subsequent revolutions in Oriental countries, which possess much vaster populations in a much vaster diversity of social conditions, will undoubtedly display even greater distinctions than the Russian Revolution.

It need hardly be said that a textbook written on Kautskian lines was a very useful thing in its day. But it is time, given that, to abandon the idea that it foresaw all the forms of development of subsequent world history. It would be timely to say that those who think so are simply fools.

[A] A reference to Marx's work The Civil War in France and his letter to Kugelmann dated April 12, 1871.

[B] See the letter of Marx and Engels of April 16, 1856.

[redstar2000]

Why don't I "feel refuted"? :lol:

We have seen what Lenin's "combination" of workers and peasants led to...modern capitalism.

Is it your wish that we should simply ignore all the failures of 20th Century Leninism and accept your "promise" that "this time" you'll "get it right"?

Not a chance! :lol:

Especially when it becomes more and more obvious that modern Trotskyism is no improvement on Kautskyism!

Parliamentary cretinism? Yep. Suck up to religion? Yep. Unite with bourgeois trade unionists? Yep.

Is there any shit you won't eat? Well, I guess you haven't become social patriots yet...can't imagine what's holding you back from that one.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[emokid08]

Absolutely! Couldn't agree more. You said it!
"Reformism is bourgeois deception of the workers, who,despite individual
improvements,will always remain wage slaves, as long as there is there is the domination of capital"
Lenin

[Guest1]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 07:14 PM
Parliamentary cretinism? Yep. Suck up to religion? Yep. Unite with bourgeois trade unionists? Yep.
I'm assuming you're referring to the corrupted leaderships of the workers' unions here to justify your anti-union ideas.

How can a workers' union be bourgeois? Even if its leadership is bullshit, a sign of the times (though that is changing rapidly), by definition a union is a proletarian organization. One union may be reactionary, another revolutionary, but they are all proletarian.

As for the failures, the collapse of the western revolutionary movements was most responsible for that, and the collapse of the international it led to just sealed the deal. But how about we look at the reality that though the russian revolution was quickly infested with a bureaucratic clique, and eventually did collapse, the proletariat was writing its own history for the first time since the commune really and did a damn fine job considering the situation.

It remains an inspiring example of the massive potential for humanity of an economy planned by the many, as opposed to haggled over by the few.

And quite clearly, it's the most solid example the working class has ever had that it can run society without the bourgeoisie.

[Vanguard1917]

We have seen what Lenin's "combination" of workers and peasants led to...modern capitalism.

Lenin understood that compromising with the peasantry was undesirable but necessary. Without revolution in other countries, only compromise with the peasantry can save the revolution, he said. Hence the NEP, the rise of the 'nepmen' and the kulaks - short-term problems that the Soviet state, due to its isolation, would have to put up with until there was revolution in Europe. Lenin did not see the NEP as a long-term plan... it was a lifeline. An already weak working class (in terms of numbers) was further weakened by the civil war, and it was impossible to introduce socialist policies at a time when the working class was so diminished. The workers' movement in Europe would decide whether or not socialism happened in Russia.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Vanguard1917
Lenin understood that compromising with the peasantry was undesirable but necessary. Without revolution in other countries, only compromise with the peasantry can save the revolution, he said.

Didn't "save the revolution", did it?

It just saved state power in the hands of the Bolsheviks.

Which, in the end, didn't turn out to mean anything, did it?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Che y Marijuana
How can a workers' union be bourgeois?

Does the expression "company union" ring a bell?

When unions cease to engage in genuine class struggle and instead become just part of the state apparatus used to control and repress the working class, then the label becomes completely meaningless...and, in fact, becomes just another way to verbally mislead people -- including lefties.

Historically, when that happens, new unions are started that actually do function as working class organs of class struggle.

The real foundation of the CIO in the late 1930s was not a group of dissident (and very ambitious!) union bureaucrats. It was American communists (Stalinists, no less!) who started independent trade unions in the early 1930s that would actually fight the bosses!

That's "where the idea" came from!

Now...have you ever heard any modern Trotskyists (or Maoists) talk about new trade unions that would actually fight the bosses?

The modern Trotskyists always talk (in the U.S.) about a "new Labor Party" -- which would, even if it could come about, simply replicate the horrendous experience of British "Labour".

But "new fighting unions"?

The silence is deafening. :(

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[rebelworker]

Well said redstar, The leadership of the modern unions is a reflection of the beurocratic and mediating nature of the Unions functioning in society. i still beleive we should be working within them wherever possible, if not for the simple fact that many of us work in unionized workplaces(this is more so true where I live than in the US but still relevant), But we must still work towards more militant networks and unions wherever possible aswell. "Workers Parties" do nothing to build militancy in the Working Class, at best they help push through reforms that could be fought for and forced apon other electoral groups. When You have a militant workers movement you can get reforms through parliment. This equation obviously dose not work the other way.

As for Russia being an example to look towards, It should be studied for lessons but I think Free Spain from 36-39 was a much better example of federated workers managed production with much less burgeoise or buerocratic influence. Workers controll in Russia was erroded away at from almost day one.

I recomend reading "The Bolsheviks and Workers Controll: 1917-1921" by Maurice Brinton or " The experience of the Russian Factory Committees" pamphlet. I have them both if you want to check them out CyM.

[wet blanket]

They all call themselves Marxists, but their conception of Marxism is impossibly pedantic. They have completely failed to unde rstand what is decisive in Marxism, namely, its revolutionary dialectics. They have even absolutely failed to understand Marx's plain statements that in times of revolution the utmost flexibility is demanded,(A) and have even failed to notice, for instance, the statements Marx made in his letters — I think it was in 1856 — expressing the hope of combining the peasant war in Germany, which might create a revolutionary situation, with the working-class movement(B) — they avoid even this plain statement and walk around and about it like a cat around a bowl of hot porridge.
What 'plain statements' of Marx are you referring to? And what kind of 'flexibility' are you talking about? Since I take it you're trying to defend Leninism, I want to see where you're drawing the parallel to Marx's ideas and the actions of the Bolshevik coup and subsequent state-capitalism.
Secondly, Marx wasn't always right about everything especially in his letters which really shouldn't be taken too seriously as far as theory goes. There's also a very good reason as to why Marx didn't publish anything on the role of the peasantry inciting a working class revolution.


Infinitely stereotyped, for instance, is the argument they learned by rote during the development of West-European Social-Democracy, namely, that we are not yet ripe for socialism, but as certain "learned" gentleman among them put it, the objective economic premises for socialism do not exist in our country. Does it not occur to any of them to ask: what about the people that found itself in a revolutionary situation such as that created during the first imperialist war? Might it not, influenced by the hopelessness of its situation, fling itself into a struggle that would offer it at least some chance of securing conditions for the further development of civilization that were somewhat unusual?

"The development of the productive forces of Russia has not yet attained the level that makes socialism possible." All the heroes of the Second International, including, of course, Sukhanov, beat the drums about this proposition. They keep harping on this incontrovertible proposition in a thousand different keys, and think that it is decisive criterion of our revolution.
This is really a chore to read, especially that second paragraph.
As far as the bit about the productive forces in Russia(at the time) not being ready, I'd say he was spot on with that assumption. Of course highly developed productive forces are necessary for the eliminate the scarcity of commodities needed to make socialism work(Food, Clothes, Medicine, etc). Russia simply didn't have that and if you look back at the history of Russia throughout the 20th century, you'll see how obvious that was. The capitalist development of the means of production and the social relationship people have to the means of production are the conerstones of Marxist analysis, and it is decisive criterion for a socialist revolution.


But what if the situation, which drew Russia into the imperialist world war that involved every more or less influential West European country and made her a witness of the eve of the revolutions maturing or partly already begun in the East, gave rise to circumstances that put Russia and her development in a position which enabled us to achieve precisely that combination of a "peasant war" with the working-class movement suggested in 1856 by no less a Marxist than Marx himself as a possible prospect for Prussia?
I hate to be the bearer of bad news here, but it didn't work out too well.


What if the complete hopelessness of the situation, by stimulating the efforts of the workers and peasants tenfold, offered us the opportunity to create the fundamental requisites of civilization in a different way from that of the West European countries?
The 'complete hopelessness' of the situation did not drive the rapid industrialization of Russia, rather it was through the efforts of the Bolshevik's brutal authoritarian state forcing the development of a militarized economy.


Has that altered the general line of development of world history? Has that altered the basic relations between the basic classes of all the countries that are being, or have been, drawn into the general course of world history?
It certainly altered history, but then again, any significant social movement does. Has it altered the relations between classes? Well... it paved the way for a whole new generation of middle-class revolutionaries taking advantage of peasant unrest in 3rd world countries to establish authoritarian states in the name of communism.


If a definite level of culture is required for the building of socialism (although nobody can say just what that definite "level of culture" is, for it differs in every Western European country), why cannot we began by first achieving the prerequisites for that definite level of culture in a revolutionary way, and then, with the aid of the workers' and peasants' government and Soviet system, proceed to overtake the other nations?
It has less to do with a level of culture and more to do with class and class consciousness. If by achieving the prerequisites in a 'revolutionary way' you mean the state monoploy capitalism which has been demonstrated by the Soviet Union and China, I'll pass.


You say that civilization is necessary for the building of socialism. Very good. But why could we not first create such prerequisites of civilization in our country by the expulsion of the landowners and the Russian capitalists, and then start moving toward socialism? Where, in what books, have you read that such variations of the customary historical sequence of events are impermissible or impossible?
There's this interesting part in my Russian history textbook which talks about the famine and scarcity which were faced by the majority of russian people because they hadn't the means to feed and clothe themselves properly. Things were not peachy-keen to begin with, however a lot of people died as a result of the actions of the Bolsheviks.
I mean, sure it's really easy to talk about making the 'great leap forward' and skipping a step or two in drive towards rapid industrialization. But the ugly reality involved with such things as hunger and scarcity isn't as easy to accept, especially if you're the one at the end of the bread line, getting your entire crop taken, or lack the necessities to stay warm during a russian winter.


Well, we did first engage in a serious battle in October 1917, and then saw such details of development (from the standpoint of world history they were certainly details) as the Brest peace, the New Economic Policy, and so forth. And now there can be no doubt that in the main we have been victorious.
Are you serious? The Bolshevik project has been a monstrous failure!


Our Sukhanovs, not to mention Social-Democrats still farther to the right, never even dream that revolutions cannot be made any other way. Our European philistines never even dream that the subsequent revolutions in Oriental countries, which possess much vaster populations in a much vaster diversity of social conditions, will undoubtedly display even greater distinctions than the Russian Revolution.
If you're talking about China, you're opening a whole other can of worms.

[Dreckt]

About the revolution in America, I think we need some kind of "situation" to motivate the people to think differently.

[Cheung Mo]

How can a union be bourgeois?

Ask all the "unions" in Canada that have ties to social and market liberal parties like the LPC and the LPO.

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by Marxism-Leninism
Napoleon, I think, wrote: "On s'engage et puis ... on voit." rendered freely this means: "First engage in a serious battle and then see what happens." Well, we did first engage in a serious battle in October 1917, and then saw such details of development (from the standpoint of world history they were certainly details) as the Brest peace, the New Economic Policy, and so forth. And now there can be no doubt that in the main we have been victorious.
You call 25,000 militia against a a few Cossacks and a small Women's Battalion a "serious battle"? The battle ended after a few rounds of fire hit the Winter Palace and only damaged it slightly...

Exactly how has Lenin been victorious? I'm always told that Lenin did not fail, but all I see is massive failure throughout the world in which his writings has any influence. What good, right now, has Lenin's so-called revolution done for people today?

[Led Zeppelin]

Ehh, just so you know, the first post was an article written by Lenin, not me.

I wish I could write like him!

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Marxism-Leninism
Ehh, just so you know, the first post was an article written by Lenin, not me.

I wish I could write like him!

Be careful what you wish for...you just might get it! :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Guest1]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2006, 12:19 PM
Does the expression "company union" ring a bell?
Nope.


When unions cease to engage in genuine class struggle and instead become just part of the state apparatus used to control and repress the working class, then the label becomes completely meaningless...and, in fact, becomes just another way to verbally mislead people -- including lefties.
Part of the state apparatus? Jesus, you're paranoid. Yes, many unions today are corrupt and reactionary. Yes, the leadership is holding workers back and selling them out at every stage.

But to say that makes a union "bourgeois" is just plain stupid. That label is not just an insult you can throw around at whoever you don't like, it has a specific meaning that has no bearing on this situation. By definition, a union is proletarian, as it is comprised of proletarians. They may not participate much, and so a bureaucratic caste of reactionaries may be in control, but they are still the heart of the union.


Historically, when that happens, new unions are started that actually do function as working class organs of class struggle.
Generally that happens successfully only in a period of intense radicalization which leads to a split that disorients and folds the old union. Otherwise, it isolates radical proletarians (in almost all situations the minority), from the rest of the proletariat they are supposed to win over.

"Red" unions didn't work.


The real foundation of the CIO in the late 1930s was not a group of dissident (and very ambitious!) union bureaucrats. It was American communists (Stalinists, no less!) who started independent trade unions in the early 1930s that would actually fight the bosses!
Different situation entirely. Let's see you try to organize new "red" unions today, rather than just have the reds take over an old one. Think you'll have much luck? The IWW sure hasn't. Though I love the wobblies, you gotta admit where they are.


That's "where the idea" came from!
No the idea back then is different from the idea today. Today it comes from impatience, which is understandable. The reality is, the situation is not right for splitting the movement, when the radical faction is large enough, splitting into red unions makes sense. But today? When there are almost none of us?


Now...have you ever heard any modern Trotskyists (or Maoists) talk about new trade unions that would actually fight the bosses?
Marxists don't see why we can't fight the bosses, by building our own radical organization that would work within all the unions already here to defeat the bureaucrats.

How do you think they were able to build the CNT in Venezuela? They had to establish a mass opposition in the old union, CTV, before making that split. The union leadership was too corrupt to allow the union to change, and that's what will happen in many unions for sure, but you stay in until you win over the rank and file. That way, when you do form a new union, you can kill two birds with one stone.

One, you draw a huge section of the old union with you, thereby establishing the new one on a firm footing.

Two, you disorient the old leadership, and precipitate a collapse which will lead to even more jumping ship.


The modern Trotskyists always talk (in the U.S.) about a "new Labor Party" -- which would, even if it could come about, simply replicate the horrendous experience of British "Labour".
And here is your formalism at work again. A is exactly A, no matter what! Nothing changes!

With your attitudes, no wonder you think it will take 500 years.


But "new fighting unions"?

The silence is deafening. :(
Perhaps if you read instead of simply dismiss offhand what Marxists have to say, you would understand what they stand for.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Che y Marijuana
Part of the state apparatus? Jesus, you're paranoid.

Perhaps things are somewhat different in Canada. :lol:

In the U.S., legal trade unions are heavily regulated by the bourgeois state apparatus. "Class struggle" is a ritual here...a ceremonial dance between union officials, corporate officials, and government officials. Everybody "important" gets paid off and the workers get fucked!


But to say that makes a union "bourgeois" is just plain stupid.

To call it "proletarian" is surely even more stupid. It no longer even pretends to act in the class interests of the proletariat.


By definition, a union is proletarian, as it is comprised of proletarians.

And so we have churchs "comprised of proletarians" thus making them "proletarian"? Or how about imperialist armies? Lots of proletarians in those; does that make them "proletarian"? :lol:

Trotskyist formalism leads to strange conclusions.


Let's see you try to organize new "red" unions today, rather than just have the reds take over an old one.

It is against the law in the United States for "reds" to "take over" a legally existing union.

Has been since 1948! :lol:


Marxists don't see why we can't fight the bosses, by building our own radical organization that would work within all the unions already here to defeat the bureaucrats.

The union "bureaucrats" are effectively part of the bourgeois state apparatus and have the repressive mechanisms of that apparatus to use against anyone who "gets out of line". You will not "defeat them" on their own turf any more than you will "defeat" bourgeois politicians in bourgeois "elections".


How do you think they were able to build the CNT in Venezuela? They had to establish a mass opposition in the old union, CTV, before making that split.

The CNT had the support of the Chavez government, did it not?

What else did it need? :lol:

And now, of course, it will act "patriotically" in the interests of the Chavez regime...and the "class struggle rhetoric" will just "fade away".


And here is your formalism at work again. A is exactly A, no matter what! Nothing changes!

Some things change and some don't.

Social democracy is always shit for example...no matter how much "Marxist" rhetoric is used to "class it up". :angry:


Perhaps if you read instead of simply dismiss offhand what Marxists have to say, you would understand what they stand for.

We've had plenty of threads here in recent months showing what modern Trotskyists have to say and what they stand for. :o

"Religious tolerance"? Yep. Participation in bourgeois "elections"? Yep. Dicking around in bourgeois "unions"? Yep. Fighting to defend bourgeois "democratic rights"? Yep. Sucking up to the social democratic Chavez regime? Yep.

With "Marxists" like these, who needs social democrats? :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[wet blanket]

Originally posted by Marxism-[email protected] 2 2006, 11:20 AM
Ehh, just so you know, the first post was an article written by Lenin, not me.

I wish I could write like him!
:lol: The man was a terrible writer(the english translations are, anyway).

You might also want to make a little bit more clear who the author is when you post something like this.

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by wet blanket
The man was a terrible writer

Right, you're writing style is so much better than his.

Please.


You might also want to make a little bit more clear who the author is when you post something like this.

You might want to read the topic description: Lenin refuting redstar.

[wet blanket]

Right, you're writing style is so much better than his.
Please.
You know nothing of my writing style outside of a few paragraphs posted on an internet BBS. Besides, we're not talking about MY writing, we're talking about Lenin's. :P I even gave him the benefit of the doubt and blamed it on the translation.


You might want to read the topic description: Lenin refuting redstar.
Well, that's still pretty ambiguous considering the following:
1) The essay wasn't about Redstar or his ideas.
2) It was posted by the user "Marxism-Lenninism".
oh well

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by wet blanket
I even gave him the benefit of the doubt and blamed it on the translation.


The translations of his writings are also a million times better than yours anyway, so it doesn't matter.


1) The essay wasn't about Redstar or his ideas.

It was about redstar's ideas, obviously you don't know enough about them, which makes me wonder why you bothered to post in this thread.


2) It was posted by the user "Marxism-Lenninism".


So? Do I refer to myself as Lenin? Do I refer to myself in the third person?

No, I don't, and you know it, so don't play dumb, you made a worthless comment now have the guts to admit it.

[wet blanket]

The translations of his writings are also a million times better than yours anyway, so it doesn't matter.
:lol: A million times better??? Boy, you sure showed me!
This is getting pretty childish.


It was about redstar's ideas, obviously you don't know enough about them, which makes me wonder why you bothered to post in this thread.
It was a response to the Second International's criticism of the prospect of a socialist revolution in russa. You're right, I don't know too much about Redstar's ideas, but I'm quite certain Lenin didn't know anything about Redstar and didn't write this essay about his ideas.


So? Do I refer to myself as Lenin? Do I refer to myself in the third person?
Perhaps. I don't know you. Keep in mind that this is the internet.
You make an absurd statement, such as Lenin writing about a person on the internet, I as a reader am going to make the assumption that you probably didn't mean that and maybe you were referring to yourself.


No, I don't, and you know it, so don't play dumb, you made a worthless comment now have the guts to admit it.
Don't get so nasty. Look at the content of the actual post, is there anything in there that suggests that it was written by anyone other than the poster? Hell, it even begins in the first person.

[Led Zeppelin]

You're probably blind or something, or maybe you simply lack basic reading comprehension, I never said Lenin "wrote about redstar", I said Lenin refuted redstar, i.e., redstars ideas, and yes, he did do so and could do so because redstars ideas aren't new, they're about as old as your simplicity of thought.

[wet blanket]

Originally posted by Marxism-[email protected] 4 2006, 10:51 AM
You're probably blind or something, or maybe you simply lack basic reading comprehension, I never said Lenin "wrote about redstar", I said Lenin refuted redstar, i.e., redstars ideas, and yes, he did do so and could do so because redstars ideas aren't new, they're about as old as your simplicity of thought.
This is ridiculous and you're acting like a child, I'm not going to carry on with you any further.
Learn to cite your sources properly.