Trotskyism

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Recently I've been trying to figure out what branch of communism I agree with the most. I've had a lot of trouble since it seems like Lib-Communism is a little too unrealistic for me while leninism will usually turn into a DOP. I'm not sure what Trotskyism is and I was wondring if anyone could explain it clearly. From what I've heard it's leninism that is critical of stalinism. Does that mean it believes in a DOP like Lenin? Or utterly hate it as Stalinism.

[barista.marxista]

Trotskyists complain that Stalin broke with Leninism, despite the fact that Stalin was elected democratically within the Party, and that Stalin expelled him both for being a threat, and for breaking the centralism of the party (an important Leninist tenet). Trotsky was just as authoritarian as Stalin was -- any look as his suppression of the anarchist collectives in the Ukraine and Russia during the Civil War will show you this. "Stalinism" is nothing but the natural outgrowth of Leninism with the failure of permanent revolution -- Trotskyists just ***** that it didn't go their way.

We need to stop focusing on dead Russians and failed Leninist regimes. Authoritarian "communism" had its reign and proved itself politically and economically incapable of building anything but a bourgeois revolution and an inevitable capitalist economy. We need a new revolutionary vision -- libertarian, not authoritarian; autonomy, not totalitarianism. We need to, alongside our fellow workers, build the new future ourselves -- not trust it to an elite party of "professional revolutionaries" who claim to be most fit to lead.

I have years of experience in a Trotskyist "vanguard," and I have experience in a Maoist "vanguard." And you know what -- they were exactly the same. It's all Leninist bullshit.

[anomaly]

Before I came to revleft, one of the main boards I posted at was the YFIS (youth for international socialism) message board. (a Trot group)

The interesting thing is that all 'proposals' about 'what to do' involved simply reforming capitalism through bourgeois elections. I know not all Trots are like that, but modern Trotsyism is largely blatantly reformist.

[Fistful of Steel]

Democratic socialism is just a marginal victory at best, and its changes are easily reverted. If trotskyism is like that then I can't support it. If trotskyism is just an outgrowth of leninism... Well I still can't support it.

[bezdomni]

Trotskyism is an extention of Marxism-Leninism that is critical of Stalin's "Socialism in One Country" and favors Trotsky's theory of Permanant Revolution.

I'll post some links to my party's website that will hopefully answer your questions about communism.

Read what interests you the most. I certainly don't expect you to read all of these. ;)

Why Socialism in One Country is Impossible. (http://newyouth.com/archives/theory/faq/why_socialism_in_one_country_impossible.asp)

Trotskyist Critique of Stalin's USSR (http://newyouth.com/archives/theory/faq/why_russia_degenerate_and_market.asp)

Permanant Revolution, Stalinism and Imperialism (http://newyouth.com/archives/theory/faq/permanenet_rev_colonial_stalinism.asp)

What is Permanant Revolution? (http://newyouth.com/archives/theory/faq/what_is_permanent_rev.asp)

The Left Opposition (http://newyouth.com/archives/theory/faq/left_opposition.asp)

How Trotskyists View the Revolutionary Party (http://newyouth.com/archives/theory/faq/what_is_rev_party.asp)

Trotsky on the Krondstadt Rebellion (http://newyouth.com/archives/classics/trotsky/hue_and_cry_kronstadt_trotsky.asp)

What is Marxism-Leninism and Trotskyism? (http://newyouth.com/archives/theory/faq/what_are_marxism_leninism_trotskyism.asp)

[bezdomni]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 08:37 PM
Before I came to revleft, one of the main boards I posted at was the YFIS (youth for international socialism) message board. (a Trot group)

The interesting thing is that all 'proposals' about 'what to do' involved simply reforming capitalism through bourgeois elections. I know not all Trots are like that, but modern Trotsyism is largely blatantly reformist.
The YFIS board does not necessarily reflect the opinions of the YFIS or the WIL.

There are even some Stalinists signed up there. The YFIS is a revolutionary organization.

And yes, there are a lot of damned reformists on that site. :angry:

[barista.marxista]

Originally posted by Fistful of [email protected] 30 2006, 04:45 PM
Democratic socialism is just a marginal victory at best, and its changes are easily reverted. If trotskyism is like that then I can't support it. If trotskyism is just an outgrowth of leninism... Well I still can't support it.
Trotskyism is an outgrowth of Leninism, and its proponents are widely social-democratic these days. Their organization is based around putting forth politicians in elections, which they say is a useful platform for dispersing socialist ideas. I worked with the SWP (USA) for years, and their rallying points were always around local elections, and they put a ridiculous amount of effort into the 2004 presidential election. Their efforts were always based around their politicians, and book drives for whatever $25 book by Jack Barnes was newest.

But this is what Leninism is reduced to in the First-World, because it's anachronistic in the industrialized world.

[More Fire for the People]

In addition to Clown's links I recommend...
Platform of the Opposition (http://marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1927/opposition/index.htm)
The Permanent Revolution (http://marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1931-tpv/index.htm)
The Transitional Program for Socialist Revolution (http://marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1938-tp/index.htm)

[OneBrickOneVoice]

So basically Trotskyists are leninists who believe Stalin screwed leninism up. Makes sense. In fact I may be a Trotskyist.


despite the fact that Stalin was elected democratically within the Party

Leninism, advocates elections by everyone and not just once.



We need to stop focusing on dead Russians and failed Leninist regimes. Authoritarian "communism" had its reign and proved itself politically and economically incapable of building anything but a bourgeois revolution and an inevitable capitalist economy. We need a new revolutionary vision -- libertarian, not authoritarian; autonomy, not totalitarianism.

The reason why lib-communism won't work is that it's to theoretical and not realistic enough. A revolution without planning/leader(s) is the same as a war without planning/leader(s). The people will get slaughtered. Also Lib-Coms want 80-90% of the population to be pro-revolution. This may never happen. Look how long it took monarchies around the world to be overthrown. hundreds and hundreds of years. Who knows if a lib-com revolution will ever happen?

[barista.marxista]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 05:51 PM
The reason why lib-communism won't work is that it's to theoretical and not realistic enough. A revolution without planning/leader(s) is the same as a war without planning/leader(s). The people will get slaughtered. Also Lib-Coms want 80-90% of the population to be pro-revolution. This may never happen. Look how long it took monarchies around the world to be overthrown. hundreds and hundreds of years. Who knows if a lib-com revolution will ever happen?
Actually, what you deem "libertarian communism" (but, in reality, is only communism, as communism can only be based on community action, hence the name), is overwhelmingly based in action before theory. Excellent examples would be the Spanish anarchists who controlled Catalonia during the Civil War, or the Italian autonomists, or the German Autonomen.

We don't advocate for "revolution without planning/leaders" -- we think revolution necessitates that everyone plan and lead. How can we change the way the world works, without having the majority want it to change? If you leave revolution to a "professional" elite, then you get what happened in Russia, China, etc.

If it takes hundreds of years, so be it. Revolution must be made by the masses, or else it isn't really revolutionary. If you're interested in reading, I'd recommend Non-Leninist Marxism: A Philosophy of Revolution (http://phillyraan.net/nonlenin.html) by Lenny Flank Jr. It's a concise and free introduction, that convinced me to reject Lennies after years of being one. After that, I'd recommend Anton Pannekoek, Paul Mattick, CLR James, Toni Negri, Steve Wright, and Harry Cleaver.

Word.

[BattleOfTheCowshed]

The reason why lib-communism won't work is that it's to theoretical and not realistic enough. A revolution without planning/leader(s) is the same as a war without planning/leader(s). The people will get slaughtered. Also Lib-Coms want 80-90% of the population to be pro-revolution. This may never happen. Look how long it took monarchies around the world to be overthrown. hundreds and hundreds of years. Who knows if a lib-com revolution will ever happen?

Lib-communism doesn't advocate a revolution without planning, it advocates planning based on cooperation and democracy though, not on some leader's vision of what the planning should look like or such nonsense. Also, using organized warfare as an analogy for anything progressive is a bit suspect. However, to get to the meat of the matter: your critique of Lib-Com is the reason why I increasingly feel myself pulled towards "that end of the spectrum" of Marxist politics. The reason why Lib-Communists want 80-90% of the population to be pro-revolution before a revoluton is because, I think if you read Marx you will see that this is the only way revolution is possible. If a vast majority of the population still adheres to the old beliefs of class society, then even the most determined revolution will eventually regress back to class society somehow. Look at the USSR, all the revolutionary rhetoric was just that, rhetoric, and class society still ruled. I think your analogy to bourgeois revolutions is dead-on! It wasn't that people overthrew monarchies and feudalism and thought "oh shit, I think we should adopt a completely new way of looking at things now". By the time monarchies/feudalism were overthrown feudalism/monarchies seemed pretty irrelevant and like a "joke" to most people. Political re-organization was merely "cleaning out the garbage" once a new way of looking at the world was adopted. Likewise I think that the majority of people will consider capitalism irrelevant and a historical joke before a revolution takes place. That doesn't mean it wont ever happen, it just means it'll take time, possibly lots of time. I remember reading RedStar2k estimating "3 generations" from now or somewhere thereabouts for when the seeds of Communism will be more or less ready to reap. Yes, it kinda sucks that we may not be around for a revolution, but thats just reality. The idea that we can somehow "magically" change society, which is what most Leninists/Trotskyists seem to espouse, is what truly seems unrealistic to me!

If you do consider yourself a Trotskyist you will probably join a Trotskyist organization/party soon. As a former member of one all I can say is: good luck! Prepare for long hours of beauracratic work, being castigated if you disagree with the party line, being ordered around by your "superiors" and A LOT of hours spent selling newspapers on corner, all in the search for the "imminent revolution" :-P.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by LeftHenry
The people will get slaughtered. Also Lib-Coms want 80-90% of the population to be pro-revolution. This may never happen. Look how long it took monarchies around the world to be overthrown. hundreds and hundreds of years.
The bourgeoisie have long said that the entire radical left is 'unrealistic'. I usually respond with either a "we'll see" or one of my favorite hand gestures.

So I always find it odd when a fellow radical leftist calls anarchism or lib-Marxism 'unrealistic'. But I usually respond in the same manner. :lol:

The people won't get slaughtered. When we have 90% of the people rising up against 10%, guess who's gonna win? Throw in anything you want, and weapons, any army, it doesn't amount to squat when faced with an overwhelming majority.

Now is gaining an overwhelming majority possible? It is if you're a materialist. People respond to material reality. So if capitalism makes their lives shit, they'll revolt. In other words, when it is in the class interest of the proletariat to revolt, they will revolt.

Now, for all of capitalism to be destroyed, it will certainly take hundreds and hundreds of years. The global transition to communism will not be an event, it will be a process. This is not to say that there will not be events within the process. For example, certain nations and/or areas will overthrow the despotism of capital sooner than others.

But if you're into Trotskyism, I would suggest you read the links posted by clownpenisanarchy and maybe start up some pm's with him. As far as Trots go, he's a pretty bright one.

[YKTMX]

Trotskyism is:

1) A defence of the October revolution
2) A defence of Lenin's theory of the party
3) The theory of Permanent revolution
4) An analysis from a Marxist perspective of the degeneration of the Russian revolution, with focus being given to objective historical circumstances.
5) Arising from 4, opposition to both Stalinism and Western capitalism
6) A re-affirmation of Marxism, primarily the concept of self-emancipation

That's about it.

[The Grey Blur]

The interesting thing is that all 'proposals' about 'what to do' involved simply reforming capitalism through bourgeois elections
Or else fighting local, realistic issues of privatisation, police brutality, racism, etc, that gain the support of the working class for Socialism


but modern Trotsyism is largely blatantly reformist.
In my experience modern Trotskyism is ultra-sectarian, not reformist. In Ireland alone there are maybe 4 or 5 "Trotskyist" organizations.

The party I would support and am a member of the Youth Wing is the Socialist Party - regularly declaimed as "reformist" by fringe groups, despite tremendous evidence to the contrary (some of their members have gone to prison due to refusal to compromise with the authorities)

Personally, my advice would be to seek out Marxist movements in your area and join the one that seems to be fighting the class war right now, not in some abstract world were books or guns will dictate the "Revolution"

As a wise comrade once said, "An ounce of experience is worth a ton of theory"


That's about it.
:lol: You really are depressed!

[LoL84]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 11:18 PM
Trotskyism is:

1) A defence of the October revolution
2) A defence of Lenin's theory of the party
3) The theory of Permanent revolution
4) An analysis from a Marxist perspective of the degeneration of the Russian revolution, with focus being given to objective historical circumstances.
5) Arising from 4, opposition to both Stalinism and Western capitalism
6) A re-affirmation of Marxism, primarily the concept of self-emancipation

That's about it.
You forgot certain strategic of the policy very significant trotskist. The trotskism it is also the working single face, the transitory step and the construction of the world party of the revolution: the fourth International.

[barista.marxista]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 09:46 PM
You forgot certain strategic of the policy very significant trotskist. The trotskism it is also the working single face, the transitory step and the construction of the world party of the revolution: the fourth International.
Glory be to the Father, Trotsky! Long live the Fourth International! Hallelujah! :lol:

[Shredder]

The people won't get slaughtered. When we have 90% of the people rising up against 10%, guess who's gonna win?

You don't have 90% of the population, you don't even have 1%. You may not even have 1/10 of 1%. Significantly less than libertarian "anarcho-capitalists" or various religious groups.

The reason for this is quite simple: you do not understand the basic tenets of Marxism or any of the things you claim to stand for. Your ideas are all unrealistic perversions of real leftist ideas, exemplified by the apocolyptic version of historical "materialism" you spewed out. You reject the tools for building class consciousness. Trotskyists actually have a program for mobilizing the working class, and it consists of--heaven forbid--actually participating in class warfare on the behalf of the working class. You do not even understand that simple strategy, yet you reject it as "social democracy", and instaed opt in favor of revolutionary prophecies that you preach to the choir.

You have absolutely no impact on the world because you reject it as bourgeois games, yet you expect the working class to rise up and listen to a bunch of lunatics who have never, ever done anything for them or ever had any impact on the world. You have no followers now, and you will have no followers when capitalism hits rock bottom.

So good luck with that.

[bezdomni]

Trotskyism is:

1) A defence of the October revolution
2) A defence of Lenin's theory of the party
3) The theory of Permanent revolution
4) An analysis from a Marxist perspective of the degeneration of the Russian revolution, with focus being given to objective historical circumstances.
5) Arising from 4, opposition to both Stalinism and Western capitalism
6) A re-affirmation of Marxism, primarily the concept of self-emancipation

That's about it.
That is a part of it, but not all of it.

Trotsky wrote a lot on Fascism and military tactic. I'm pretty sure he wrote more books than Lenin.

You can also read pretty much all of Trotsky's works on the Marxists.org website.


In my experience modern Trotskyism is ultra-sectarian, not reformist. In Ireland alone there are maybe 4 or 5 "Trotskyist" organizations.
Trotskyism itself is not inherently sectarian, that just seems to be a problem with Trotskyists.

However, a lot of revolutionary Trotskyist groups are uniting under the banner of the Committee for a Marxist International (CMI). My party, the Worker's International League (WIL) is a part of the CMI.


Personally, my advice would be to seek out Marxist movements in your area and join the one that seems to be fighting the class war right now, not in some abstract world were books or guns will dictate the "Revolution"
I'd tend to agree.

Although I'd also suggest against doing something stupid like joining the reformists at the CPUSA or the ISO.

There are a lot of groups that claim to be fighting the "class war", but very few actually are. Be selective with who you join up with, but not too selective.

The only people I really cannot work with are Stalinists. I usually hang out with anarchists at protests, I correspond and hope to meet with the Maoists at the RCP so we can plan a demonstration and I've gone to an ISO "meeting" (really more of a "let's talk about the war for about an hour and sell some newspapers).

Stalinists usually can't get anything done. There are maybe two that I know of that I can get along with in the realm of politics.


But if you're into Trotskyism, I would suggest you read the links posted by clownpenisanarchy and maybe start up some pm's with him. As far as Trots go, he's a pretty bright one.

Why thank you!

:wub:

[barista.marxista]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 10:36 PM
bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit
Quick!!! You're wasting valuable time you could be using to sell your newspaper!!! Oh, wait, you have the majority of the population on your side, not the 1/10 of 1% like we libcoms do, so I guess you don't need to.

Carry on bullshitting, then. :P

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Talking to some of my Trotskyite pals recently, I discovered that they don’t believe in violent revolution?!?

They were basically trying to explain to me that if workers strike for long enough periods of time and others with non-violent protest then things could change.

Also, they were saying that they doubt the likelihood of a workers revolution (in the UK) so the only other option is to change it through a elected stage of transition.

Further, the see the current electoral system as fundamentally good, saying that as long as Socialist MP's are paid a workers wage they will still act according to the interests of workers.

For example they are contesting seats around my area in the local councilor elections, which is just electioneering. Personally I don’t think communists should work within this system, but should try and show it up for it anti-working class characteristics.

They however evidently do not.

I think their intentions are right, but their tactics are wrong. I personally think that this is because of Trotskyite parties having central committees, where the petty bourgeois academics are rely on popularity and careerism to maintain the party, and why risk a good thing like that?

[LoL84]

Either you badly understood, or the person who told you that is a trotskist as much as me I am a shaolin monk.

If not there is a thing which is certain. We do not believe in the theory of the "great evening". A social movement in itself cannot set up in socialist revolution. It is initially necessary to build the revolutionary party able to seize the power supported by a mobilization of mass which starts a rupture with capitalism with the creation of popular double capacity. And what is violent it is not the revolution in itself it is the counter-revolution of the bourgeoisie trying to save its system.
Concerning the elections, it is stupid not to want to take part in it not to guarantee them. Within the framework of the bourgeoise democracy in which we are, the elections rate political life. They are sometimes the only thing which politically interests the large majority of the workers. Thus in missing by simple principle is absurd. The whole is not to fall into vote-catching manoeuvres. It is necessary to be presented at the elections to make use of it like platform for the claims of the workers. It is necessary that the campaign is a call to the action. The political history of all the capitalist country are often played in the elections. Not there not to be is to be beside the history.

[barista.marxista]

I'm sure not every Trot is a reformist, but that by and large the majority of Lennies in the first-world are sinking into reformism says something. The ISO is openly reformist, the SWP is engaged solely in parliamentarism, the CPUSA hasn't even run its own candidates since 1984, and instead just endorses the Democrats, and the RCP rallies behind liberal front groups like NION and WCW. The only Leninist group I can think of that doesn't spend any time at all in bourgeois politics is MIM, and they're just five white middle-aged men in their mothers' basement.

This is not coincidence -- Leninism is an anachronistic paradigm in the industrialized world. The party model has long been subsumed into the capitalist social-factory, making it as revolutionary as the AFL-CIO. It is not a vehicle for revolution, let along a "vanguard," and has become a dangerous hindrance to the actual communist and anarchist movement, and something to be struggled against.

[LoL84]

The ISO is openly reformist, the SWP is engaged solely in parliamentarism
All this groups are leave the Fourth International. The only section in USA is Socialist Action. http://www.socialistaction.org/

[barista.marxista]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 11:35 AM
All this groups are leave the Fourth International. The only section in USA is Socialist Action. http://www.socialistaction.org/
My criticism isn't only of Trotskyism or the Fourth International -- it's of Leninism as a paradigm.

[Janus]

while leninism will usually turn into a DOP
So far that hasn't happened. Look at the USSR, worker councils were quickly stripped off power after the revolution.

[Mehring]

Too true. Moreover the whole anarchist tendency rests on subjective idealism. It sees the ideas of anarchism playing the central role in the creation of a new anti-capitalist society. This is a rejection of Historical Materialism which is an analysis of the actual forces of historical change (the class struggle in the capitalist mode of production).

Also, to just claim that the Bolshevik's struggle against some Anarchist elements was an attempt to create authoritarianism is a furphy. The "communes" or -bandits- were blocking grain supplies to people in the cities and in the military resulting in millions of deaths. Of course the Trotsky was going to suppress them!. During the revolution he also worked with Anarchist and other elements at times. But change is impossible through ideology alone. Its the forces of capitalism and its decay that creates the socialist solution to capitalism.

Its very important to defend the heritage of the Bolsheviks up to 1924 and then the Left Opposition because those lessons (the mistakes and the victories) can inform the new struggle as it unfolds during the groing crisis of capitalism. If we dont have a correct appraisal of the events we will be that much more unprepaired in the new struggle and that could lead to serious setbacks and lives lost.

[btpound]

Trotskyism asserts several major points. 1) That socialism was never realized in Russia, because socialism requires democratic control of wealth which never occurred, 2) that Stalin was as a bearcat, who abandoned proletarian internationalism, 3) that socialism cannot be realized in one country. It is the anti-thesis to Stalinism. His major contributions to Marxist theory are the Transitional Programme which calls for transitional demands made by the working class. This may sound like opportunism and reformism; however the idea is not to win better toilet paper in the workplace. it has in mind the much wider goal of pitting the more liberal parties against each other. It involves pulling these so-called progressive parties into the struggle and forcing them to take a position in relation to the working class on their terms. It HAS been successful in practical terms, like the Teamster Rebellion, which a book was written on. Second, and perhaps more controversial, was the Permanent Revolution, which asserts that in underdeveloped countries a bourgeois class can never form because they will be held back by the world bourgeoisie. The theory of stages is flawed in many aspects, one that a bourgeois class cannot form in under-developed countries because there is not exponential room for growth. The age of Imperialism forces the capitalist super-powers to hold the rest of the world down. I feel this principle is expressed even in the world today, when you look at places like Africa, which still have people who live in huts, where a bourgeois class has never formed, and the resources are exploited by foreign capitalists, and the means for surplus value are never developed. Maoism asserts that the communists in these countries must work toward capitalism in their country, be exploited by that for about 100 years, then the socialist revolution. Trotskyism asserts that they should not wait, that the working class must team with the peasant class and lead them in proletarian revolution. The peasantry cannot take a leading role, unlike in China where the proletariat had virtually no role.
Say what you will about Trotsky and Trotskyists, but I think that he is an important part of Marxist-Leninism, and should be studied by anyone who believes in a variety of measures. Not just because he is a Marxist, but because Marxists have used Trotskyist platforms and they have succeeded. They don’t all succeed every time, but nothing does. If you absolutely hate Trotsky and think all Trotskyists should go fuck themselves, you have more of a reason to read him, so you can know where you stand and can come from a position of intelligence.

[Led Zeppelin]

Please don't necro threads. This is from 4 years ago.

Closed.