The Strategy and Nature of Bolshevism

[Nachie]

I don't know if anybody is familiar with Daniel and Gabriel Cohn-Bendit's excellent book Obsolete Communism: The Left-Wing Alternative - It talks about the events in Paris 1968 and specifically how the Leninist factions waged a direct war against workers' power in the interests of their own continued participation in bourgeois politics and the survival of the USSR.

Anyway, it's an excellent book by self-described "Marxist-anarchists" and you can get it from Amazon or AK Press. Highly recommended.

What I'd like to focus this thread on is the last chapters of the book, in which the Bendit brothers focus on an analysis of Lenin, Trotsky, and the Bolshevik Party so as to get to the bottom of why Leninism really, really sucks. Originally they were going to have chapters dealing with tons of different insurrections including those in East Germany and Hungary, but I guess they ran out of time or something and this is the only one that ended up in the book. Still, it's probably the single best, most concise analysis I've come across of what the hell went wrong in Russia. Dig:

1. The Role of the Bolshevik Party During the Russian Revolution (http://libcom.org/library/snb-role-bolshevik-party)
2. The Makhno Movement and Opposition Within the Party (http://libcom.org/library/snb-makhno-bolshevik-opposition)
3. Kronstadt (http://libcom.org/library/snb-kronstadt)

Please actually read at least the first chapter if you're planning on criticizing this thread.

EDIT ADD: One of the things that makes these texts so good is the extensive quoting from the Bolsheviks' own publications.

[Intelligitimate]

More of the same anarchist bullshit you can get from the Anarchist FAQ, right? Yeah, Leninism sucks, thats why anarchists have been starting revolutions all over the world. Oh, wait, anarchists don't do shit. In fact, the last thing an anarchist did to make the news was shoot a cop in the face.

Oh, and lets not forget to praise the man whose troops committed pogroms! And lets not forget to praise the white rebellion in Kronstadt!

I'm just glad anyone with some sense eventually grows out of anarchism.

[Nachie]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 04:27 PM
Oh, wait, anarchists don't do shit. In fact, the last thing an anarchist did to make the news was shoot a cop in the face.
Who are you referring to and in what country?

As for the rest of what you wrote, thanks for not reading anything in the links I posted. Your opinion has been duly noted and strenuous efforts were made to care about it, but these attempts ultimately proved to be untenable.

[chimx]

Anyone that says Kronstadt was a White rebellion needs to pick up a historybook.

[Lord Testicles]

Originally posted by Intelligitimate+May 9 2006, 05:27 PM--> (Intelligitimate @ May 9 2006, 05:27 PM) Oh, wait, anarchists don't do shit. [/b]
What about places like Catalonia during the Spanish Civil war?


Intelligitimate Posted on May 9 [email protected] 05:27 PM
Yeah, Leninism sucks, thats why anarchists have been starting revolutions all over the world.

Yeah, and I guess Leninists have? <_<

Also there is no need to be so hostile you sectarian arse wipe.

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 05:11 PM
Anyone that says Kronstadt was a White rebellion needs to pick up a historybook.
Kronstadt was a White Rebellion.

Which books in particular would you suggest, comrade?

I&#39;ve read Avrich, it&#39;s interesting.

Any others?

[chimx]

if you&#39;ve read paul avrich&#39;s work you should already know that the Kronstadt mutiny had no connection to any Tsarist generals--that is Whites. The complexity of the Russian Civil War is much greater than white vs. red. to pigeon hole any that oppose one side as being in bed with the other is simply a vulgarity.

[YKTMX]

I don&#39;t "know" anything of the sort.

Kronstadt (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=49078&st=0&hl=kronstadt)

Read that thread.


Plus, there&#39;s a bit more on the "Workers&#39; Control" issue

The Bolsheviks and Workers&#39; Control (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=46902&hl=bolsheviks+workers+control)

[Intelligitimate]

Who are you referring to and in what country?

Why, none other than Andrew Mickel, of course. Poor kid, if he would have been a Leninist, he would have realized doing something stupid like he did will do nothing to spread revolutionary consciousness.


As for the rest of what you wrote, thanks for not reading anything in the links I posted.

I asked if it was anything different from the anarchist FAQ line. I seriously doubt it is, so there is no point in reading just another anarchist regurgitation on the evils of Leninism.


Anyone that says Kronstadt was a White rebellion needs to pick up a historybook.

I also have Avrich&#39;s book, and it is quite telling. Perhaps you should read it a little more closely.

[chimx]

John Rees, for example, quotes Paul Avrich to support his assertion that the Kronstadt revolt was, in fact, pro-White. He argues as follows:


"Paul Avrich . . . says there is &#39;undeniable evidence&#39; that the leadership of the rebellion came to an agreement with the Whites after they had been crushed and that &#39;one cannot rule out the possibility that this was the continuation of a longstanding relationship.&#39;" (Op. Cit., p. 64)

What Rees fails to mention is that Avrich immediately adds "[y]et a careful search has yielded no evidence to support such a belief." He even states that "[n]othing has come to light to show that . . . any links had existed between the emigres and the sailors before the revolt." [Avrich, Op. Cit., p. 111] How strange that Rees fails to quote or even mention Avrich&#39;s conclusion to his own speculation&#33; As for the post-revolt links between the "leadership" of the rebellion and the Whites, Avrich correctly argues that "[n]one of this proves that there were any ties between the [National] Centre and the Revolutionary Committee either before or during the revolt. It would seem, rather, that the mutual experience of bitterness and defeat, and a common determination to overthrow the Soviet regime, led them to join hands in the aftermath." [Op. Cit., p. 129] Seeing you friends and fellow toilers murdered by dictators may affect your judgement, unsurprisingly enough.

Let us, however, assume that certain elements in the "leadership" of the revolt were, in fact, scoundrels. What does this mean when evaluating the Kronstadt revolt?

Firstly, we must point out that this "leadership" was elected by and under the control of the "conference of delegates," which was in turn elected by and under the control of the rank-and-file sailors, soldiers and civilians. This body met regularly during the revolt "to receive and debate the reports of the Revolutionary committee and to propose measures and decrees." (Getzler, Op. Cit., p. 217) The actions of the "leadership" were not independent of the mass of the population and so, regardless of their own agendas, had to work under control from below. In other words, the revolt cannot be reduced to a discussion of whether a few of the "leadership" were "bad men" or not. Indeed, to do so just reflects the elitism of bourgeois history.

And Rees does just that and reduces the Kronstadt revolt and its "ideology" down to just one person (Petrichenko). Perhaps we can evaluate Bolshevism with this method? Or Italian Socialism. After all, influential figures in both these movements ended up making contacts and deals with extremely suspect organisations and acting in ways we (and the movements they sprang from) would oppose. Does that mean we gain an insight into their natures by mentioning Stalin&#39;s or Mussolini&#39;s later activities? Or evaluating their revolutionary nature from such individuals? Of course not. Indeed, Rees&#39;s article is an attempt to argue that objective circumstances rather than Bolshevism as such lead to Stalinism. Rather than do the same for Kronstadt, he prefers to concentrate on an individual. This indicates a distinctly bourgeois perspective:


"What passes as socialist history is often only a mirror image of bourgeois historiography, a percolation into the ranks of the working class movement of typically bourgeois methods of thinking. In the world of this type of &#39;historian&#39; leaders of genius replace the kings and queens of the bourgeois world. . . . The masses never appear independently on the historic stage, making their own history. At best they only &#39;supply the steam&#39;, enabling others to drive the locomotive, as Stalin so delicately put it . . . This tendency to identify working class history with the history of its organisations, institutions and leaders is not only inadequate -- it reflects a typically bourgeois vision of mankind, divided in almost pre-ordained manner between the few who will manage and decide, and the many, the malleable mass, incapable of acting consciously on its own behalf . . . Most histories of the degeneration of the Russian Revolution rarely amount to more than this." ("Solidarity&#39;s Preface" to Ida Mett&#39;s The Kronstadt Uprising, pp. 18-9)
link (http://www.diy-punk.org/anarchy/append42.html)


The Provisional Revolutionary Committee first had its headquarters on the flagship Petropavlovsk, but within a few days it removed to the "People&#39;s Home", in the center of Kronstadt, in order to be, as the Izvestia states, "in closer touch with the people and make access to the Committee easier than on the ship". Although the Communist press continued its turbulent denunciation of Kronstadt as "the counter-revolutionary rebellion of the General Kozlovsky", the truth of the matter was that the Revolutionary Committee was exclusively proletarian, consisting for the most part of workers of known revolutionary record. The Committee comprised of following 15 members:

1. PETRICHENKO, senior clerk, flagship Petropavlovsk;
2. YAKOVENKO, telephone operator, Kronstadt district;
3. OSSOSSOV, machinist, Sevastopol;
4. ARKHIPOV, engineer;
5. PEREPELKIN, mechanic, Sevastopol;
6. PATRUSHEV, head mechanic , Petropavlovsk;
7. Kupolov, senior medical assistant;
8. VERSHININ, sailor Sevastopol;
9. TUKIN, electrical mechanic;
10. ROMANENKO, caretaker of aviation docks;
11. ORESHIN, manager of the Third Industrial School;
12. VALK, lumber mill worker;
13. PAVLOV, Naval mining worker;
14. BAIKOV, carter;
15. KILGAST, deep sea sailor.
link (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/bakunin/graphicstable.htmlhttp://dward/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/kronstadt/berkkron.html)

[YKTMX]

It would seem, rather, that the mutual experience of bitterness and defeat, and a common determination to overthrow the Soviet regime, led them to join hands in the aftermath.

I thought the rebels wanted to "renew" the Soviet regime, not "overthrow it". Also, it seems rather strange that such bastions of Anarchist courage and principles would join with fascist generals, just because they lost.

Would the anarchists have excused Trotsky doing the same thing when he was hounded out of the USSR?

I doubt it.

The crushing of the pogromist coup by the brave Red Army volunteers was one of the last great moments of the revolution.

:)

[chimx]

first: i&#39;m sorry you are too inept to understand the difference between Soviet and soviet.

second: i repeat the quotation since your bourgeois brain is too infantile to understand: "What passes as socialist history is often only a mirror image of bourgeois historiography, a percolation into the ranks of the working class movement of typically bourgeois methods of thinking. In the world of this type of &#39;historian&#39; leaders of genius replace the kings and queens of the bourgeois world. . . . The masses never appear independently on the historic stage, making their own history. At best they only &#39;supply the steam&#39;, enabling others to drive the locomotive, as Stalin so delicately put it . . . This tendency to identify working class history with the history of its organisations, institutions and leaders is not only inadequate -- it reflects a typically bourgeois vision of mankind, divided in almost pre-ordained manner between the few who will manage and decide, and the many, the malleable mass, incapable of acting consciously on its own behalf . . . Most histories of the degeneration of the Russian Revolution rarely amount to more than this."

third: my shotgun kicking back after firing a slug through your fucking skull will be the last great moment of the revolution.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 08:36 PM
third: my shotgun kicking back after firing a slug through your fucking skull will be the last great moment of the revolution.
Your revolution ends with a purge of revolutionaries you disagree with? Sounds like anarchism leads to Stalinism.

[Nachie]

A purge implies an internal "cleansing" based on repressive mechanisms no "anarchist" revolution would have in the first place. Now, open warfare against reactionary groups outside of the revolution is another thing entirely, particularly when conducted at a totally decentralized, non-institutionalized, and spontaneous level as necessary for the physical defense of proletarian autonomy.

[Intelligitimate]

It&#39;s one of the inconsistencies of anarchists. Anarchists accuse us of stupid things worshipping "leaders of genius" and yet they don&#39;t do anything different with men like Makhno.

Allow me to quote the words of my friend on anarchists:


Originally posted by FustinJelux
Lenin hit the nail on the head when he described anarchism as a "petty bourgeois" ideology. Anarchism&#39;s founding fathers were people like Proudhon, who were small property owners who resented the increasing dominance of large-scale capitalism. If you look around today, you&#39;ll find that most anarchists and their right-wing counterparts, the libertarians, are small property owners, students, intellectuals, or other kinds of semi-privileged middle class people (white, adolescent males are extremely over-represented in anarchist and libertarian ranks). They see themselves as oppressed by the bourgeosie (or in the case of the libertarians, the government). But history shows that when the shit hits the fan, they will always cave in and side with the ruling class.

The anarchists, for their part, are against essentially every kind of authority there is. They are opposed to the rule of the bourgeois state, but they are equally unwilling to submit to the rule of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Thus the anarchists are anti-political at best, and counterrevolutionary at worst. The history of of anarchist revolutionaries is a history of crass opportunism and betrayal of the working class. I have to put up with this stuff all the time in the ostensibly left-wing student organization I belong to, which is dominated by self-styled "anarchists" who have no interest in building revolutionary consciousness. They make no attempts to increase their membership and promote revolutionary education on campus. In fact, it seems that the more isolated and insignificant they are, the more self-assured in their "radicalism" they feel. They have nothing but contempt for the masses, whom they see as "stupid," yet they somehow represent the best hope for the liberation of those "stupid" masses. It&#39;s quite pathetic, actually.

[Nachie]

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand you still haven&#39;t actually read any of the texts that were posted.

(which no, are quite different from the all-powerful and anti-Marxist "Anarchist FAQ")

[Intelligitimate]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 09:15 PM
A purge implies an internal "cleansing" based on repressive mechanisms no "anarchist" revolution would have in the first place. Now, open warfare against reactionary groups outside of the revolution is another thing entirely, particularly when conducted at a totally decentralized, non-institutionalized, and spontaneous level as necessary for the physical defense of proletarian autonomy.

Yeah, like Makhno shooting anti-Semites in his army on the spot. That&#39;s a great example of how unauthoritarian anarchists are.

[Nachie]

Yeah, like Makhno shooting anti-Semites in his army on the spot.
Sorry, didn&#39;t realize you wanted them.

[Intelligitimate]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 09:32 PM

Yeah, like Makhno shooting anti-Semites in his army on the spot.
Sorry, didn&#39;t realize you wanted them.
I certainly don&#39;t care. In fact, it would have been much better for the Jews if he had shot more anti-Semites in his army, because they comitted pogroms.

But it just goes to show anarchist talk about hierarchy and authority is just a bunch of bullshit.

[Intelligitimate]

Originally posted by FustinJelux
Anarchists hail the Makhnovites for their supposedly egalitarian system of military organization and the practice of "self-discipline." In reality, all of this was a facade. The real power and prestige among the Makhnovites was with the commanders, as with most armies. As for the practice of "self-discipline," this commonly took the form of punching men in the face and shooting people on the spot. The crown jewel of anarchist literature, namely the Internet document known as the Anarchist FAQ, speaks glowingly of this practice of shooting people on the spot, offering it as proof of Makhno&#39;s revolutionary mettle and his supposed opposition to anti-Semitism (he had a soldier shot for putting up an anti-Semitic poster). Then, in the very next breath, the FAQ denounces the Red Army for having such strict discipline and authoritarian structures&#33; Anarchists seem particularly repulsed by the fact that Red Army soldiers saluted one another. Oh, the horror&#33; It is things such as this that illustrate anarchism&#39;s childish attitude towards authority. There is an enormous gulf between someone who is a revolutionary and someone who is a compulsive rebel.

[Edelweiss]

Are you aware that "Dany le rouge" has become a liberal, bourgeois politician for the French Greens in the European parliament? He is also hosting some stupid TV talk show on a tiny, private channel.

His website: http://www.cohn-bendit.de

[chimx]

why does it matter?

[Nachie]

Yeah what a tool&#33;

Was it him that de Gaulle once called "the most dangerous man in the country" or something like that? :lol:

[Edelweiss]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 11:05 PM
why does it matter?
It admitingly doesn&#39;t really matter for the significance of his works, but I think it does matter if you want to judge his credibility. I also just thought his personal developement would be worth mentioning, it&#39;s just a typical example of the carreer of a former radical 68er.

[Nachie]

it&#39;s just a typical example of the carreer of a former radical 68er.
Malte have you seen the German film The Edukators?

[chimx]

Originally posted by Malte+May 9 2006, 10:11 PM--> (Malte @ May 9 2006, 10:11 PM)
[email protected] 9 2006, 11:05 PM
why does it matter?
It admitingly doesn&#39;t really matter for the significance of his works, but I think it does matter if you want to judge his credibility. I also just thought his personal developement would be worth mentioning, it&#39;s just a typical example of the carreer of a former radical 68er. [/b]
credibility shouldn&#39;t lay in the ideology behind the authorship, but in the notation and citation behind any historical work.

[barista.marxista]

I&#39;m actually in the process of laying out a study for myself to do over the summer, ranging from CLR James, through Cohn-Bendit, into Toni Negri, Steve Wright, and possibly Katsiaficas, if I have the time. I&#39;ve had Obsolete Communism on my shelf for months, been itchin&#39; to read it&#33; :D

[Lord Testicles]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 10:29 PM
Yeah, like Makhno shooting anti-Semites in his army on the spot. That&#39;s a great example of how unauthoritarian anarchists are.
Whats authoritaitarian about shooting anti-semites?

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 10:38 PM
credibility shouldn&#39;t lay in the ideology behind the authorship, but in the notation and citation behind any historical work.
Where credibility comes in is in judging the author&#39;s interpretations of the facts. Anyone can assemble an array of sources but drawing the correct conclusions depends heavily on the background and political views of the author. A good historian can try and set aside prior bias and deal solely with the facts but an assassin piece such as this... well its almost worthless from an historical perspective.

If I want a criticism of the Bolsheviks or Lenin then I&#39;ll read Redstar or other critical Marxists. In other words people who can criticise from a position of knowledge, theory-wise. Here we have a liberal pissed off with Marxism... I&#39;m sure that hasn&#39;t happened before :rolleyes:

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by Skinz+May 10 2006, 11:24 AM--> (Skinz @ May 10 2006, 11:24 AM)
[email protected] 9 2006, 10:29 PM
Yeah, like Makhno shooting anti-Semites in his army on the spot. That&#39;s a great example of how unauthoritarian anarchists are.
Whats authoritaitarian about shooting anti-semites? [/b]
Depends on the situation. If the said anti-semite is a member of your own ranks and is probably anti-semitic because his entire cultural experience has been drenched in anti-semitism (like your typical Ukranian peasant of the period), then perhaps a programme of re-education would be preferable to murder. If, however, the anti-semite is part of a fascist organisation and is actively promoting pogroms then, by all means, shoot him in battle.

[Nachie]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 11:50 AM
Here we have a liberal pissed off with Marxism...
Oh hey great, somebody else who didn&#39;t actually read it&#33;

[Dyst]

Whats authoritaitarian about shooting anti-semites?


It is authoritarian, in the sense that a revolution is an authoritarian situation.

Doesn&#39;t make it wrong.

[Lord Testicles]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 02:58 PM


Whats authoritaitarian about shooting anti-semites?


It is authoritarian, in the sense that a revolution is an authoritarian situation.

Doesn&#39;t make it wrong.
Agreed, but its the outcome of the revolution is what matters and Intelligitimate makes out that it is imposable not to be authoritaitarian, were as most of us here don’t want an authoritaitarian rule after the revolution, it would defeat the point.

[Intelligitimate]

Originally posted by Skinz+May 10 2006, 11:24 AM--> (Skinz @ May 10 2006, 11:24 AM)
[email protected] 9 2006, 10:29 PM
Yeah, like Makhno shooting anti-Semites in his army on the spot. That&#39;s a great example of how unauthoritarian anarchists are.
Whats authoritaitarian about shooting anti-semites? [/b]
On the spot executions doesn&#39;t give you pause? I mean, anarchists go on and on about hierarchy and authority, as if Red Army troops saluting each other was such a huge deal, and then praise Makhno&#39;s on the spot executions in the next breath.

But I guess don&#39;t let your alleged values get in the way of supporting Makno. As long as he was fighting real revolutionaries (Marxists), that&#39;s all anarchists seem to care about.

[Nachie]

No military force can be run completely "democratically". Take the Zapatistas, for instance. They are a revolutionary army but are organized more or less traditionally. What matters is that their overall control is decentralized throughout the entire Zapatista community, which is why Marcos himself is still only a "sub-commander".

In the case of Makhno, his armies replaced Bolshevik commissars with libertarian communes. Of course he had to kill people along the way. Nobody debates that, but you crazy bastards are content to create a strawman ideology for us out of thin air and call us "anarchists". Some of us are, but some of us are Marxists - the same label you wish to appropriate for yourself and Lenin exclusively.

Besides, Makhno went so far as to meet Lenin and was then insulted to his face by the asshole. He made several alliances with the Red Army during the early days when the Bolsheviks still hadn&#39;t clamped down on everything and considered them real partners in the struggle. He was eventually betrayed and a good deal of his command murdered.

More importantly, STILL nobody has responded to anything in the actual texts that were posted.

[Intelligitimate]

You&#39;re a curious little creature. You want to call yourself a Marxist, yet you are no different than an anarchist. I suppose once an anarchist realizes that all the appealling elements of anarchism are just watered down Marxism, they would either abandon anarchism, like most of us do, or in your case, try to co-opt Marx&#39;s legacy.

In any case, you&#39;re just another gullible young radical who has swallowed the religion of anti-communism. Your organization will do nothing, and will probably fade into non-existence in a few short years.

[chimx]

Originally posted by ComradeOm+May 10 2006, 11:50 AM--> (ComradeOm @ May 10 2006, 11:50 AM)
[email protected] 9 2006, 10:38 PM
credibility shouldn&#39;t lay in the ideology behind the authorship, but in the notation and citation behind any historical work.
Where credibility comes in is in judging the author&#39;s interpretations of the facts. Anyone can assemble an array of sources but drawing the correct conclusions depends heavily on the background and political views of the author. A good historian can try and set aside prior bias and deal solely with the facts but an assassin piece such as this... well its almost worthless from an historical perspective. [/b]
Bzzzzt. wrong.

[Nachie]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 04:04 PM
Your organization will do nothing, and will probably fade into non-existence in a few short years.
Cool, see you then&#33;

[Intelligitimate]

August 31, 2005 - "Revolution Books", the propaganda outlet of Bob Avakian&#39;s Maoist cult the "Revolutionary Communist Party" in Cambridge, MA is vandalized and "Maoism Kills Millions" spraypainted with the RAAN acronym across the store&#39;s front doors. A story on Boston IMC relating to the vandalism appears to have illicited several comments in support of the action. It was the second time that an RCP bookstore is attacked by network affiliates.

Sheesh, you&#39;re a bunch of retarded little punks.

[Nachie]

Still dodging the actual topic of the thread. :rolleyes:

[Intelligitimate]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 04:09 PM
Still dodging the actual topic of the thread. :rolleyes:
Like I give a shit what some Marxist wannabe-turned liberal bourgeois politician thought.

[Nachie]

Cool I was just looking for an admission from one of you fucks that you&#39;re totally unwilling and/or unable to confront the points made in the book.

Thanks&#33; :lol:

[Intelligitimate]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 04:14 PM
Cool I was just looking for an admission from one of you fucks that you&#39;re totally unwilling and/or unable to confront the points made in the book.

Thanks&#33; :lol:
Again, is it no different than the typical anarchist shit? I seriously doubt it.

Why is RAAN so stupidly juvenile? You think vandalizing an RCP book store is spreading revolutionary consciousness? You&#39;re a bunch of dumbasses, just like Andrew Mickel. Why should I bother reading anything you recommend, when you&#39;re clearly not even the least bit serious about revolution? Why would you even want to affiliate yourself with someone who completely abandoned socialism? Would you like to start recommending the works of Horowitz also?

[chimx]

Originally posted by Intelligitimate+May 10 2006, 04:12 PM--> (Intelligitimate @ May 10 2006, 04:12 PM)
[email protected] 10 2006, 04:09 PM
Still dodging the actual topic of the thread. :rolleyes:
Like I give a shit what some Marxist wannabe-turned liberal bourgeois politician thought. [/b]
so you only read history books written by ideologically slanted leninists? you would make a great historian, noob. there is more to history than circle-jerking with your comrades and talking about how great mother russia was.

[chimx]

Why would you even want to affiliate yourself with someone who completely abandoned socialism? Would you like to start recommending the works of Horowitz also?

OH EM GE&#33;

nobody is affiliating with the author. fuck the author. mother fucking pol pot could have written the book, but if his argumentation based on his citations are legitimate, it would be a worthy read. you fucking people delude yourself with biased history and attack anyone who strays outside of your camp. your attacks are baseless, you are worthless.

[Intelligitimate]

so you only read history books written by ideologically slanted leninists?

Of course not, but I would be wary of relying on people who abandoned socialism for my political views. Even Horowitz once wrote some very radical stuff, but I would be very cautious in trusting anything written by him, as well as men like Christopher Hitchens.

[Nachie]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 04:21 PM
Again, is it no different than the typical anarchist shit? I seriously doubt it.
Again, I already said "no" right HERE (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=49793&view=findpost&p=1292067542). But please don&#39;t let that get in the way of you remaining in your hermetically-sealed ideology at all costs. It&#39;s easier on your brain.


Why is RAAN so stupidly juvenile?
Cause we&#39;re fucking awesome.


You think vandalizing an RCP book store is spreading revolutionary consciousness?
Actually, yes.


Why should I bother reading anything you recommend, when you&#39;re clearly not even the least bit serious about revolution?
Why should I bother answering any of your posts, when you&#39;re clearly commited to doing a verbal sommersault out of any direct questions that are posed? You can call me anti-communist, anarchist, or whatever to make yourself feel better all you want, but really... eh, nevermind. You&#39;re dumb. There. I said it.


Why would you even want to affiliate yourself with someone who completely abandoned socialism?
I&#39;m affiliating myself with a well-researched historical and ideological investigation. Why are you using his current life as such a flimsy justification for not actually having to read the texts I posted?


Would you like to start recommending the works of Horowitz also?
Uh, no? That guy was a Stalinist.

[Edelweiss]

Originally posted by nachie+--> (nachie)Malte have you seen the German film The Edukators?[/b]

Nope


ComradeOm
Here we have a liberal pissed off with Marxism... I&#39;m sure that hasn&#39;t happened before

Cohn-Bendit obvoiusly wrote this piece before he turned a "pissed off liberal". Your reply shows that you have no clue about revolutionary history, "Dany le rouge" was one of the leading figures if the 1968 student&#39;s revolt in France. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Cohn-Bendit

[Intelligitimate]

Cause we&#39;re fucking awesome.

You&#39;re fucking pathetic is what you are. Only a stupid complusive rebel would think doing something like will ever lead to revolution. That just goes to show you are not serious in the slightest about liberating people from capitalism, you&#39;re just a bunch of teenage punks trying to cause trouble.

Your organization will never go anywhere.

[Nachie]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 04:33 PM
Nope
I&#39;d say it&#39;s worth checking out if you can find it for free... your comments about Cohn-Bendit reminded me of it. In German I think the name was "Your days of plenty are numbered" or something like that?

Long story short it&#39;s about some situationist-inspired but very cynical radicals who break into mansions and rearrange all the furniture and do other silly situ stuff like that. One day, the rich guy comes home while they&#39;re doing it and they panic and knock him out and kidnap him. As they get to know him it turns out that he used to be president of German SDS back in his day but over time turned into what he hated. So they decided to try and "re-educate" him; the debates they have are well-written for a movie.

I would recommend it though because unlike almost every other movie about young revolutionaries and their hopeless dreams, the ending was actually satisfying.

http://ia.imdb.com/media/imdb/01/I/43/79/29m.jpg

[Angry Young Man]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 04:27 PM
I&#39;m just glad anyone with some sense eventually grows out of anarchism.
Why should one "grow out of Anarchism"? I started reading basic Marx, then Trotsky, and am increasingly attracted towards Anarchism, mainly because it falls in line with my philosophical views that I have recently developed.
Monday mid-morning: Philosophy lesson; I am very tired, and struggle to concentrate; then the teacher puts on a video about early Rationalists, and I realised: "These guys talk aload of bollocks&#33;&#33;"
Just the whole idea of innate ideas seems absurd. For example, Descartes wax example: "How do I know that this is still wax when it has changed in respect to all five senses in every way possible?" He put the idea as something in the mind identifies it. Try the fact that YOU SAW IT MELT and gradually take a new form&#33;
And the issue of their devout faith in God and true objects based on Plato&#39;s (frankly
stupid) epistemology.
So I revolted against that, and thought, "With no objective rules of abstract concepts, why must there be for empirical objects?"
Somebody probably came up with this idea before.

[Nachie]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 04:39 PM
Only a stupid complusive rebel would think doing something like will ever lead to revolution.


Who said it would lead to revolution? What it lead to is the RCP and other Leninists knowing damn well where we stand, which means in five years they won&#39;t be able to come at us with some "broad alliance" bullshit.


That just goes to show you are not serious in the slightest about liberating people from capitalism, you&#39;re just a bunch of teenage punks trying to cause trouble.
The two are mutually exclusive? :lol:


Your organization will never go anywhere.
Again: SEE YOU IN A FEW YEARS

...

Hey wait a minute&#33; I just noticed you still haven&#39;t actually responded to anything in the texts&#33; How odd and totally unpredictable&#33;

[Edelweiss]

I&#39;d say it&#39;s worth checking out if you can find it for free... your comments about Cohn-Bendit reminded me of it. In German I think the name was "Your days of plenty are numbered" or something like that?


Oh, now I know what you are talking about, of course I know it&#33; In Germany it&#39;s called "die fetten Jahre sind vorbei" - " the fat years are over". Good movie indeed&#33;

Cool coincidence, it&#39;s the movie that inspired the anarchists in Hamburg robbing luxury retsurants, which is just being discussed (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=49789) in Politics.

[LoneRed]

hey Nachie what did you want me to check out and respond to?

[Intelligitimate]

LOL&#33; Is RAAN just a way to push some shitty punk music and get record sales? You even more fucking pathetic than I thought.


It is Nachie&#39;s hope that a strong association based on shared revolutionary beliefs and a variety of tactics, driven by a serious practice of mutual aid, will be able to make a serious and lasting contribution both to his record sales and the decay of western civilization.

God what a worthless fuck you are.

[Intelligitimate]

And you&#39;re anti-Chavez to boot&#33; What a vile, worthless little scoundrel you are.

[Nachie]

Originally posted by LoneRed+May 10 2006, 10:59 PM--> (LoneRed @ May 10 2006, 10:59 PM) hey Nachie what did you want me to check out and respond to? [/b]
Just the texts I posted at the very beginning. Even just the first chapter...


"Some Asshat"
LOL&#33; Is RAAN just a way to push some shitty punk music and get record sales? You even more fucking pathetic than I thought.
LOL&#33; I&#39;m gonna rehash the same record label argument everybody else pulls out their ass and then create a silly fictional quote and hope it disguises my total lack of counter-argument&#33; LOL&#33;

LOL&#33; Too bad RAAN began in 2002 and the record label only got involed three years later&#33; LOL&#33;

You know, you use exactly the same ridiculous tactics as the dogmatic anarchists who think we&#39;re authoritarians. It&#39;s fucking hilarious.


And you&#39;re anti-Chavez to boot&#33; What a vile, worthless little scoundrel you are.
What, did the Central Committee not approve my having an opinion based off years of research and two months on the ground in Venezuela? I must not have gotten the memo.

OH SHIT YOU STILL HAVEN&#39;T RESPONDED IN ANY WAY TO THE ACTUAL TOPIC OF THE THE THREAD&#33; WHAT. A. SURPRISE.

[Intelligitimate]

I&#39;m gonna rehash the same record label argument everybody else pulls out their ass and then create a silly fictional quote and hope it disguises my total lack of counter-argument&#33;

It came from a wiki page on your little shitty org. It&#39;s probably been vandalized, something you pathetic pieces of garbage should understand quite nicely.


Too bad RAAN began in 2002 and the record label only got involed three years later&#33;

Making any money at it, or just Svendsen? LOL&#33;


You know, you use exactly the same ridiculous tactics as the dogmatic anarchists who think we&#39;re authoritarians. It&#39;s fucking hilarious.

It&#39;s good to know you can&#39;t even attract anarchists into your org. Just reactionary psuedo-leftist trash&#33;


OH SHIT YOU STILL HAVEN&#39;T RESPONDED IN ANY WAY TO THE ACTUAL TOPIC OF THE THE THREAD&#33; WHAT. A. SURPRISE.

I clicked on the first link, and it indeed is just more of the same anarchist shit, trying to co-opt the February revolution as some sort of example of anarchism in action. Cohn-Bendit&#39;s sources amount to nothing more than a cut and paste job of Trotsky, not anything serious.

[Nachie]

It came from a wiki page on your little shitty org. It&#39;s probably been vandalized, something you pathetic pieces of garbage should understand quite nicely.
I guess that&#39;s what we get for pissing off a bunch of total nerds with sweet hacking skills. Oh no, not the precious Wiki&#33; I didn&#39;t even realize we had a Wiki, but it seems we have two&#33; Luckily the one that was vandalized was the improper form of our name.

I got 15 cents that says it was Hopscotch Anthill.


Making any money at it, or just Svendsen? LOL&#33;
LOL&#33;

*high five*


It&#39;s good to know you can&#39;t even attract anarchists into your org. Just reactionary psuedo-leftist trash&#33;
Yeah&#33; You tell &#39;em&#33;


I clicked on the first link, and it indeed is just more of the same anarchist shit, trying to co-opt the February revolution as some sort of example of anarchism in action. Cohn-Bendit&#39;s sources amount to nothing more than a cut and paste job of Trotsky, not anything serious.
THANK YOU. Sheesh.

[Nachie]

Originally posted by Vasili [email protected] 11 2006, 02:10 AM
Comrade Georges Marchais
*drumroll*

Another Stalinist&#33; Hooraaaaaaaaaaaaaay&#33;

[Vasili Blucher]

Elements of the 1968 Paris riots:

Daniel Cohn Bendit: Anarchist German Jew -- the son of a lawyer :o
Alain Krivine: Trotskyist Jew
Alain Gesimar: Maoist Jew

In short, the 1968 riots were the actions of a handful fringe Maoists, Trotskyists, and anarchists from upper bourgeois families wealthy enough to attend elite universities. They are entirely disconnected from the proletariat.

Revolution, unless it involves participation from the working-class, is guaranteed to fail. The antics of the 1968-esque bourgeois university student are without focus, organization, and any real aims. Intellectuals are the class enemy and the likes Cohn-Bendit are no exception.

[Nachie]

Gee, what kind of "Jew" am I?

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by Vasili [email protected] 11 2006, 02:10 AM
Cohn-Bendit, the German Jewish anarchist, can piss off with his infantile nonesense. As Georges Marchais correctly characterized the aimless 1968 Paris troublemakers, Cohn-Bendit and his ilk are sons of the upper bourgeoisie who will quickly forget their revolutionary flame in order to manage daddy&#39;s firm and exploit workers there.
Bit like Engels, then. :blush:

Not sure it&#39;s always wise to castigate someone on the basis of their social class origins.