Reformists!!!

[Sandanista]

Are there any other marxists who are getting to be a bit pissed off with reformists and state capitalists?

Many people only seem to claim to be Communists without understanding what it actually is, they are only interested in the shock value to their parents than to have actually read "the communist manifesto" and "das kapital" and understood what it means?

Lenin was bullshit, stalin was bullshit, trotsky was bullshit, che was the only one who had any notion of trying to bring about communism, but even he was infected with Leninism.

The revolution will come, but only if all these nostalgic leninists and stanlinists read the manifesto and capital.

Knowledge IS power, so educate yourself...

[Sensitive]

I don't like reformists or Stalinists, but Lenin and Trotsky were great. I also like Mao, Tito, Che and other revolutionaries.

[Donut Master]

Sandanista, I feel your pain. It really pisses me off when people form big opinions on things they know nothing about, and I reluctantly admit I have seen it on this board. There are a few people who come here claiming to be communists or supporters of Fidel, yet they apparently know little about either. Maybe they're just young kids. But it's important to know all the facts before you pick sides, otherwise you will intentionally look only for facts that would support the side you think you have chosen. You will not have formed an intelligent opinion.

Concerning reformists and those who simply want to "patch up" the capitalist system, I am quite frustrated with them as well. They can't seem to get it through their heads that the US electoral system is too polluted by capitalism to function fairly. Third parties will never have a chance unless we get some serious changes, and these changes will never be made via reforms unless a third party wins! So, we're stuck. The system is incapable of efficiently correcting itself.

Lenin was bullshit, stalin was bullshit, trotsky was bullshit, che was the only one who had any notion of trying to bring about communism, but even he was infected with Leninism.

I agree absolutely.

[redstar2000]

Yes, Sandanista, it does get tiresome on occasion. No matter how patient you tell yourself to be and no matter how many times you explain basic Marxist ideas over and over again, still you can count on finding that some absolutely brazen nonsense has been posted the next time you go online.

And I honestly can't say which is worse; the kids who know almost nothing or the Leninists who ought to know better.

But, Sandanista, this is our job -- or revolutionary duty, if you'd like a fancier phrase. Who is going to educate these people if not us? We're lucky enough to know a little bit more...so we have to pass that on. Over and over again!

And, frustrating though it sometimes is, we have no way to measure what effects we're having. Only a very small proportion of the members of this board actually post here...how many of those 4,500 people are reading and understanding what we're saying? How much of what we say now will help to completely destroy the possibility of some senile Leninist folly 30 years from now?

So...pass me that shovel. :o

:cool:

[kylie]

Are there any other marxists who are getting to be a bit pissed off with reformists and state capitalists?

and yet you link to the scottish socialist party, a party which beleives in being voted into government. this is a complete contradiction with your attitude to reformists.

but only if all these nostalgic leninists and stanlinists read the manifesto and capital.
again contradicting yourself, calling leninists nostalgic(in the context of an insult) and then recommending the communist manifesto.

Concerning reformists and those who simply want to "patch up" the capitalist system, I am quite frustrated with them as well.
you have shown yourself to have these tendancies, in your opposition to labour camps.

I don't like reformists or Stalinists, but Lenin and Trotsky were great. I also like Mao
mao was at least partly stalinist.

i do find it odd how you seem to be linking leninists, trotskyists and stalinists with reformists. stalinist have in the past made bizzare alliances with the reformists, but certainly the other two groups are in no way connected with the reformists.






(Edited by feoric at 12:46 pm on May 1, 2003)

[Sandanista]

I am in the SSP meatly as a political platform, i whole heartedly admire tommy sheridan, but his credentials as a true revolutionay are a bit....lame.

Leninists an the like look back to the USSR and wish it would come back, but how can you say that my influences from TCM and Capital are nostalgic, TCM and capital are still very relevant to today, infact, even more relevant, whereas all the other state capitalist countries like USSR, China, Cuba and North Korea have all failed because they WERE capitalists and horrible dictatorships that helped capitalism!!!

and i wasnt suggesting stalin was a reformist, i called him a state capitalist.

The reformists are indeed, the ssp, and all the namby pamby hippies who want peaceful ends and democratic overthrow through means of elections.

the uk set the precedent of reformism in 1945 when the first labour majority government was elected, and nearly 60 years later, the country is going full circle back to privitisation.

[Sandanista]

Oh yes, incase people start saying, "you're not a marxist, you've zapata as your avatar". I SAY FUCK UP!!!!!! I PICKED IT COZ HE LOOKS STOOPID!

[Donut Master]

you have shown yourself to have these tendancies, in your opposition to labour camps.

When did I even talk about labor camps on this forum, let alone oppose them?

[kylie]

Leninists an the like look back to the USSR and wish it would come back, but how can you say that my influences from TCM and Capital are nostalgic, TCM and capital are still very relevant to today
the events of the october revolution, its build up and what happened afterwards were derived from marxism. why wouldnt they want it to come back, how can a person be a communist and not want revolution to return?
if you're not a leninist, and therefore not one of the ideologies derived from it, what are you? a marxist? the vast majority of marxists are reformists, due to those who are against reform moving to marxist-leninism. could you explain more clearly it is you have against Lenin and his work?

even more relevant, whereas all the other state capitalist countries like USSR, China, Cuba and North Korea have all failed because they WERE capitalists and horrible dictatorships that helped capitalism!!!

If Lenin had not issued the NEP the revolution would have collapsed. Before socialism could be achieved, first there needed to be capitalism, which had not fully developed in Russia. North Korea and China are/were to some degree Stalinist, so i would agree with those not being true communist states. Cuba? Where is the 'horrible dictatorship' there? And Cuba has succeeded in upholding the revolution, though due to its isolation and US hostility, has not reached its full potential.

When did I even talk about labor camps on this forum, let alone oppose them?
im sure you have somewhere. even if you havent, its a safe bet you're against them, judging by your views on other issues.

[Sandanista]

Have you never heard of Fidel Castro, he IS a dictator, and a nasty one at that, Cuba has a terrible human rights record, just recently he suppressed trade unions and dissidents....

Yeah but the trouble was, Russia stayed capitalist, and the revolution happened too soon because capitalism hadn't been given more time to develop, and the arms race and space race put russia into competition with the west, thus making it a capitalist economy.

[Revolution Hero]

Sadanista, you actually remind me that type of little kids who know nothing about the subject, yet talk insane shit.
You say: "Don't read neither Lenin, nor Stalin, but read K. Marx" Are you fucking stupid? Have you ever read Lenin or Stalin?
Their works 100% conforms to Marx's theory. If you have something intelligent to say then say it, but don't post such stupid posts like those above!
I have just came up to conclusion that che- lives sucks, some comrades had realized this way before me, but it is better late than never.
The vast majority of the members don't have the right to call themselves revolutionary leftists, you all have big problems and you will never learn!

(Edited by Revolution Hero at 8:41 pm on May 2, 2003)

[Sensitive]

Revolution Hero, most of the members here are either young, learning about Marxism or a combination of both. Have some patience, hehe.

[Revolution Hero]

Sensitive, I used to explain to such members the basics of Marxism, I repeated the same things over and over again, so did the other comrades, but those kids never learned. No doubt that some individuals made great progress, but the majority just doesn’t have clear understanding of who were Marx, Engels, Lenin and what were their ideas.
One can argue that we have to teach those who know nothing. But look at this little kid Sadanista, I am sure he will come up with some unintelligent arguments about Lenin contradicting Marx. Those kids are not open (which is very unusual), maybe they are just bourgeois bastards, who want to destroy leftist movement from the inside. Who knows?
My point is that this forum is not good place for young people to learn about socialism, communism etc. What I advice to all young members is to read original works of classics, including Stalin and Mao, so you, young comrades, will be able to make own conclusions, not listening to such ignorant persons like Sadanista.
Good luck in your studying!

[Sandanista]

trouble is, stalin didnt try to phase out the wages system.

plus the soviet union spent more on arms than any other country, and waged imperialist wars (afghanistan).

Maybe stalin and lenins work to conform to marx, but in power they acted like the other capitalists in the world.

Karl Marx, the original and best!

[redstar2000]

There appears to be a good deal of confusion about what reformism actually is.

The central idea of reformism is the use of the capitalist state machinery to attain state power for the working class.

In practice, this means the formation of a "workers" electoral party, which runs election campaigns in competition with bourgeois political parties, wins increasing support, is able to convince the bourgeoisie to introduce pro-worker reforms, and finally wins a majority in parliament...proceeding to introduce socialism by perfectly legal and lawful means. In the worst examples of reformism, even the "workers party" portion of the strategy is dropped...and the so-called socialist actually works inside the "most left" bourgeois political party in an attempt to turn it "into" a "workers party".

Marx and Engels, on the contrary, argued that the working class must smash the bourgeois state apparatus entirely and set up its own "state" -- "the dictatorship of the proletariat". (This was not meant to be the personal dictatorship of a "great leader" or a self-appointed elite "vanguard"...it was meant to be a "state" controlled completely by the working class as a whole and to be used only against the old ruling class.)

To specifics: the Leninist tradition is split right down the middle on the issue of reformism. In pre-capitalist countries, many Leninist parties have opted for Marx's approach and actually carried out revolutionary struggles. In the advanced capitalist countries, the Leninist tradition has been almost uniformly reformist in practice. Some have been better than others and some have been worse. And, if you looked hard, you might find some partial exceptions.

But, in the "west", Leninism has been just as reformist as social democracy in practice, regardless of occasionally better rhetoric. Leninism is "more revolutionary" in words; but works out to be more or less the same in deeds.

But remember what really divides revolutionaries from reformists. If you want to or think it's possible and desirable to use the bourgeois state machinery to achieve "socialism", then you're a reformist. If you insist on the Marxist position--that the old state machinery must be overthrown and destroyed--then you are in the revolutionary camp.

Looked at in the right way, it's really quite simple.

:cool:

[Revolution Hero]

Quote: from Sandanista on 8:34 pm on May 2, 2003
trouble is, stalin didnt try to phase out the wages system.

plus the soviet union spent more on arms than any other country, and waged imperialist wars (afghanistan).

Maybe stalin and lenins work to conform to marx, but in power they acted like the other capitalists in the world.

Karl Marx, the original and best!


First of all Stalin DID TRY to eliminate "wages system", and explained his thoughts about doing so, in one of his last works in economics. But Khruschev began capitalization. You see, Stalin was actually true communist.
Secondly, the measure of developing military industry was historical necessity. Soviet Union needed to have strong army in order to defend itself and to help other revolutions abroad. The latter conforms to the Marxist - Leninist principle of proletarian internationalism.
Thirdly, you said that Lenin and Stalin had acted like capitalists. How can you prove it? Sure, you have no proof for another ignorant statement!
You better go and learn the subject!

[Sandanista]

I retract my earlier statements, i was misinformed by socialist worker pamphlets, i was quickly put right by my ISM counterparts that stalin did create a workers state, and the arms race was, to a certain extent, a historical necessity.

However stalins purges were uncalled for.

I will however, take propaganda with a pinch of salt from now on.

I apologise, infact, rev hero, are u russian by any chance?

[ComradeRiley]

I am 19 and am anti-american, i am reluctent to say I am marxist/lenninist/stalinist/communist/socialist or whatever because i admit I dont know enough to be able to say that this is what I am so REDSTAR2000 please educate me

[Sandanista]

I dont like being called a little kid either, i have had more hard knocks and shit in 17 years on this planet.

However i have been told i am a trotskyite, but i class myself a mis-informed marxist.

[the SovieT]

and yet again i see another guy taht claims to be marxist, when when talking about the apication of the marxist ideals you say its all "reformism"...

tsss how wrong for a marxist...

Marxism always needs a litle revisionism in order to be righty aplied to certain realitys...
Leninism was the apication to the russian reality, maoism to the chinese etc...
one must see wich ideoligy fits your present reality and stick with it....

now claiming to be solely a marxist is stupid.... becuase Marx ideoigy isnt perfect nor dogmatic... it needs to be sighty changed and revised in order to be aplied...

you all bash leninism... yet most of your communist heros were Leninist hardliners such as Che...

Leninism is only bureocratic and false if you make it so...

aply it correctly and yopu wount have problems...

[redstar2000]

ComradeRiley, I'd say right up front that "it ain't easy", but you already know that.

One of the things that makes it most difficult for young comrades to pick their way through the accumulated trash of the last century is that no one takes out the garbage.

Instead of looking at the first generation of communist countries with a clear, scientific eye -- trying to figure what was correct and what was wrong, there are still all too many people like Revolution Hero, SovietT, and many, many others who "worship at the old shrines" without regard to evidence.

To them, communism is hardly any better than any other religious superstition; their icons of Lenin, Mao, even Che, cannot be regarded as humans with both achievements and blunders to their credit...no, we are supposed to "keep the faith" and "keep repeating old slogans" and never ever stop to actually think about this stuff.

"Read scripture and believe" is the content of their message, and I don't know about you, but I find it infuriating.

Think about it. Here were two guys in the 19th century, in an ocean of bourgeois and pre-bourgeois philosophical claptrap, who actually saw through the shit down to the material reality and the class relationships that determine the nature of human societies.

And what have their "followers", or to use a more contemptable term, "disciples" made of this remarkable discovery? Just turned it into another fucking religion!

Check out this incoherent babble from SovietT: "Leninism is only bureaucratic and false if you make it so; apply it correctly and you won't have any problems." Sure, and Christianity is only false and oppressive "if you make it so"..."apply it correctly" and you'll rise from the grave three days after your death!

What do you suppose it means to "apply Leninism correctly"? Here's a hint: if you win, you applied it correctly; if you lose, then you applied it "incorrectly".

And since the only even semi-socialist countries left in the world today are Cuba and Vietnam (nobody knows what the hell North Korea is), that means that Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Mao, etc. all applied Leninism incorrectly.

Well doesn't it, guys?

Watch this, ComradeRiley, whenever these bozos are challenged on their grotesque parodies of Marxism, they will always fall back on "so-and-so betrayed the revolution." The 19th century bourgeois "great man of history" school is meat and drink to these people. Knowing nothing of class struggle, they see history in terms of "heroes" and "villains".

Once upon a time there was a Great Leader who loved his people and took care of them like a father...until an
evil wizard came unto the land and destroyed the beloved kingdom, blah, blah, blah.

It's the old story of the serpent in the Garden of Eden, dressed up with scraps of Marxist terminology.

I tell you in all honesty, ComradeRiley, if you really want to be a communist, a real one, the hardest part is not going to be the struggle against the capitalist class...the hardest part will be to get past the blockheads who want to build a "First Church of Marx" instead of a revolutionary movement.

Fortunately, I know it can be done.

:cool:

[Sensitive]

It is aggravating how some people basically worship Marx and Engels, yet they attack and belittle every great communist thinker and revolutionary that came after them (Lenin, Trotsky, Tito, Mao, Che, etc). All of these individuals are heroes of the battle for socialism. We should not attack them; their names and deeds should inspire us to bring glorious victories for socialism in our time (the 21st century!).

[Donut Master]

An uproarious applause for your post, Redstar. Well said!

[Revolution Hero]

Quote: from the SovieT on 1:03 am on May 5, 2003
and yet again i see another guy taht claims to be marxist, when when talking about the apication of the marxist ideals you say its all "reformism"...

tsss how wrong for a marxist...

Marxism always needs a litle revisionism in order to be righty aplied to certain realitys...
Leninism was the apication to the russian reality, maoism to the chinese etc...



You have to differ theoretical development from theoretical deformation, the latter is REFORMISM.
For example, social- democrats are typical revisionists, they don't accept political class struggle and dictatorship of the proletariat. Thus, they are just simple renegades!
In contrary, Lenin left all Marx's ideas untouched and developed the theory on the basis of these ideas.
The case with Mao is the case of specific national internal features of Chinese social- economical situation. But still Mao didn't underestimate the role of proletariat in the revolution.

[Saint-Just]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 1:59 am on May 5, 2003
ComradeRiley, I'd say right up front that "it ain't easy", but you already know that.

One of the things that makes it most difficult for young comrades to pick their way through the accumulated trash of the last century is that no one takes out the garbage.

Instead of looking at the first generation of communist countries with a clear, scientific eye -- trying to figure what was correct and what was wrong, there are still all too many people like Revolution Hero, SovietT, and many, many others who "worship at the old shrines" without regard to evidence.

To them, communism is hardly any better than any other religious superstition; their icons of Lenin, Mao, even Che, cannot be regarded as humans with both achievements and blunders to their credit...no, we are supposed to "keep the faith" and "keep repeating old slogans" and never ever stop to actually think about this stuff.

"Read scripture and believe" is the content of their message, and I don't know about you, but I find it infuriating.

Think about it. Here were two guys in the 19th century, in an ocean of bourgeois and pre-bourgeois philosophical claptrap, who actually saw through the shit down to the material reality and the class relationships that determine the nature of human societies.

And what have their "followers", or to use a more contemptable term, "disciples" made of this remarkable discovery? Just turned it into another fucking religion!

Check out this incoherent babble from SovietT: "Leninism is only bureaucratic and false if you make it so; apply it correctly and you won't have any problems." Sure, and Christianity is only false and oppressive "if you make it so"..."apply it correctly" and you'll rise from the grave three days after your death!

What do you suppose it means to "apply Leninism correctly"? Here's a hint: if you win, you applied it correctly; if you lose, then you applied it "incorrectly".

And since the only even semi-socialist countries left in the world today are Cuba and Vietnam (nobody knows what the hell North Korea is), that means that Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Mao, etc. all applied Leninism incorrectly.

Well doesn't it, guys?

Watch this, ComradeRiley, whenever these bozos are challenged on their grotesque parodies of Marxism, they will always fall back on "so-and-so betrayed the revolution." The 19th century bourgeois "great man of history" school is meat and drink to these people. Knowing nothing of class struggle, they see history in terms of "heroes" and "villains".

Once upon a time there was a Great Leader who loved his people and took care of them like a father...until an
evil wizard came unto the land and destroyed the beloved kingdom, blah, blah, blah.

It's the old story of the serpent in the Garden of Eden, dressed up with scraps of Marxist terminology.

I tell you in all honesty, ComradeRiley, if you really want to be a communist, a real one, the hardest part is not going to be the struggle against the capitalist class...the hardest part will be to get past the blockheads who want to build a "First Church of Marx" instead of a revolutionary movement.

Fortunately, I know it can be done.

:cool:


You seem to reckon that Leninists are not really thinkers, but blind followers of a religion. In reality Lenin, Stalin and Mao and so on understood Marx very well, so well they were able to apply his theories to existing societies.

Praise towards leaders exists in Marxism-Leninism, it is not religious praise. Religion is a sympton of class society. Proletarian leaders such as Lenin, Stalin and Mao are leaders of a class. Religion is a sympton of Bourgeois society, but not a ruler of bourgeois society. Indeed, religion has begun to wither in many ways in bourgeois society. However, the leaders that lead socialist movements will never wither, because they, unlike religion in bourgeois society, are necessities for working class movements.

How is it that Marxist-Leninists have 'kept the faith' with leaders such as Stalin and Lenin, but now with leaders such as Khrushchev or Deng Xiaoping, it is because revisionism does actually exist, certain leaders have betrayed Marxism, the class struggle has been lost. Stalin lost it because he thought they had nearly won it, when they had not at all, Mao had got nowhere near winning it.

Stalin, Lenin and Mao did apply Leninism correctly, but they are individuals, if their entire societies had applied it correctly they would have succeeded, therefore we must follow their societies for the whole of society to apply it correctly.

I am horrified at your comments that we know nothing of class struggle. Marxist-Leninists that have observed revisionism have said that it is precisely to do with class struggle. In the Soviet Union, they were affected by imperialist classes, figures such as Gorbachev and many others in the CPSU were affected by the external bourgeois clas of the imperialist countries.

Stalin himself rejecte that individuals necessarily ran history, but that it was classes. In Juche it is the case that the mass class attempts to progress with working-class thought whilst the reactionary classes hold it back with bourgeois thought. Leaders are tools of the classes in class struggle. Whilst in bourgeois thought the struggle takes place only between leaders, and 'heroes and villians' of history.

If you want me to insult your views....you know what I'm going to say, that you have a great knowledge of Marxism, but you cannot do anything with it since you are so affected by bourgeois ideals on democracy and individualism and freedom; these are desirable ideals, but you possess the bourgeois interpretation of them. An interpretation that only ever serves to aid the bourgeois class, and not our own.

Well, maybe we will see your movement in action one day, but I think it will be destroyed by bourgeois thought very easily, since you cannot seem to combat this kind of thought, but rather are greatly affected by it and would reconcile the innately opposed working class thought with it.

[Sandanista]

STALIN WAS A FUCKING STATE CAPITALIST!!!!!

FOR FUCKS SAKE!!!!!!

HE MURDERED MILLIONS!!!!

IF ONE COUNTRY TRADES WITH ANOTHER COUNTRY, IT IMMEDIATELY BECOMES CAPITALIST, A CORRUPT WORKERS STATE!!!

THIS MADE CUBA, CHINA, RUSSIA, NORTH KOREA, THE WHOLE EASTERN BLOC AND THE REST OF THE SO-CALLED SOCIALIST WORLD, CAPITALISTS.

BECAUSE SOCIALIST TRADES WITH SOCIALIST, DOESNT MAKE IT SOCIALIST, ITS STILL CAPITALIST!!!

[redstar2000]

ComradeRiley, I hope you read Chairman Mao's post carefully...for, just as I predicted, he said "certain leaders have betrayed Marxism..." (my emphasis).

Consider this, CM. If state power is in the hands of the working class, what difference could the "betrayal" of a "leader" possibly make? Why wouldn't a "revisionist" leader be immediately removed from all positions of authority?

You know why...because, except for only a couple of places and for a brief time in the early stages, the working class had no power at all. They were at the "mercy" of a self-appointed "vanguard" elite, which might be benevolent or might be tyrannical or somewhere in between...but which were never truly accountable to the class they purported to "represent".

"Democracy, individualism and freedom are bourgeois ideals." Indeed, they once were. They go all the way back to 1789...when the bourgeoisie was the progressive class.

Things have changed a little since then, CM. The bourgeoisie may still utter ritual platitudes on those subjects, but their practice reveals their deep and abiding hatred for those values. A reasonably close examination of modern capitalist society suggests that "democracy, individualism, and freedom" are no more than pretty pastel shades of paint on an ugly semi-fascist fortress.

What class is really for those values, CM? What class would see those concepts as liberating, now? What class has become the "progressive" class at this stage of history? Come on...guess! (Hint: it's not the peasantry.)

The fact that you link those values with the bourgeoisie "for all time" not only reveals your a-historical approach to social reality...but worse, promises a grim future for all of us were Leninism to ever make a serious come-back. The choice between capitalism and your version of "socialism" would boil down to: which barracks has the better mess hall?

That's not good enough.

:cool:

[ComradeRiley]

Thanks REDSTAR2000, learning communism is very difficult

[Saint-Just]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 3:55 pm on May 5, 2003
ComradeRiley, I hope you read Chairman Mao's post carefully...for, just as I predicted, he said "certain leaders have betrayed Marxism..." (my emphasis).

Consider this, CM. If state power is in the hands of the working class, what difference could the "betrayal" of a "leader" possibly make? Why wouldn't a "revisionist" leader be immediately removed from all positions of authority?

You know why...because, except for only a couple of places and for a brief time in the early stages, the working class had no power at all. They were at the "mercy" of a self-appointed "vanguard" elite, which might be benevolent or might be tyrannical or somewhere in between...but which were never truly accountable to the class they purported to "represent".

"Democracy, individualism and freedom are bourgeois ideals." Indeed, they once were. They go all the way back to 1789...when the bourgeoisie was the progressive class.

Things have changed a little since then, CM. The bourgeoisie may still utter ritual platitudes on those subjects, but their practice reveals their deep and abiding hatred for those values. A reasonably close examination of modern capitalist society suggests that "democracy, individualism, and freedom" are no more than pretty pastel shades of paint on an ugly semi-fascist fortress.

What class is really for those values, CM? What class would see those concepts as liberating, now? What class has become the "progressive" class at this stage of history? Come on...guess! (Hint: it's not the peasantry.)

The fact that you link those values with the bourgeoisie "for all time" not only reveals your a-historical approach to social reality...but worse, promises a grim future for all of us were Leninism to ever make a serious come-back. The choice between capitalism and your version of "socialism" would boil down to: which barracks has the better mess hall?

That's not good enough.

:cool:


The working classes in Russia did oppose such leaders as Khrushchev, in their millions, once Stalin had died. Obviously though, masses of the working class were not as politicised. If you read many of Cassius Clay's posts you know what happened when Stalin died, in terms of protest.

I do not link the values of individualism, freedom and democracy to the bourgeoisie, I say that they preach them, but that their concepts of these values are false concepts. I do not oppose these concepts. That being true I am obviously not a-historical.

[redstar2000]

Yes, CM, I did read Cassius's report (from Soviet Georgia, right?) and a most interesting one it was.

However, that doesn't answer my point.

Nor does your statement that the "workers were not as politicized." If they weren't, whose fault was that?

If you have no real power -- except the occasional power of protest -- why should you be politicized?

If you have no voice, there's hardly much point in taking singing lessons. A slight majority of the working class in the United States doesn't vote at all...what would be the point?

My point is that a working class with real power instantly removes "bad leaders"...and that has simply failed to occur in all of the Leninist countries.

You really only have a couple of choices here, CM.

Was the working class in those countries "really stupid" and incapable of recognizing "betrayal"?

Or did they recognize it all right, but were powerless to stop it?

Finally, it seems to me that you have contradicted yourself badly on the matter of "democracy, individualism and freedom." Initially, you suggested that these were "bourgeois ideals" or at least that I held a "bourgeois interpretation" of those ideals...though you neglected to explain just why that might be so.

Now you've apparently changed your mind and accepted these goals as legitimate for the working class...but neglected to explain how you reconcile that with the features of Leninist societies and the organizing principles of Leninist parties.

Look, CM, I've been in a Leninist-Stalinist-Maoist party. You're in one now. Unless yours is very new and very small, you know as well as I do how much real clout the membership has...pretty damn close to zero.

Do you think it would be any different if the "great leaders" in your group were actually in power over a whole country?

I don't.

:cool:

[Saint-Just]

'Finally, it seems to me that you have contradicted yourself badly on the matter of "democracy, individualism and freedom." Initially, you suggested that these were "bourgeois ideals" or at least that I held a "bourgeois interpretation" of those ideals...though you neglected to explain just why that might be so.

Now you've apparently changed your mind and accepted these goals as legitimate for the working class...but neglected to explain how you reconcile that with the features of Leninist societies and the organizing principles of Leninist parties.

Look, CM, I've been in a Leninist-Stalinist-Maoist party. You're in one now. Unless yours is very new and very small, you know as well as I do how much real clout the membership has...pretty damn close to zero.

Do you think it would be any different if the "great leaders" in your group were actually in power over a whole country?'

I never contradicted myself. You were right that I said you had a bourgeois interpretation of these ideals, as opposed to the Marxist-Leninist interpretation. I never at any point said that these ideals were undesirable.

Your right I did not explain why you hold the bourgeois interpretation.

I know Marxist-Leninists have no clout in my country, and yes I do think it would be different were we in power.

I used to have similar views to you, I rejected the theories of Lenin, Stalin, Mao and so on. Only accepted Marx as the true socialist. Don't know how things change, or why our views differ really.

(Edited by Chairman Mao at 6:55 pm on May 6, 2003)

[redstar2000]

"It is aggravating how some people basically worship Marx and Engels, yet they attack and belittle every great communist thinker and revolutionary that came after them (Lenin, Trotsky, Tito, Mao, Che, etc). All of these individuals are heroes of the battle for socialism. We should not attack them; their names and deeds should inspire us to bring glorious victories for socialism in our time (the 21st century!)." -- Sensitive

I noticed you left Stalin out of your "hall of fame" list; accident or deliberate?

In any event, I think you miss the point of this discussion.

What we are trying to figure out "in the 21st century" is the new shape of communism. Whatever the ultimate historical evaluation of the figures you mention, they are not and could not possibly be "an inspiration".

We are not religious; the "lives of the saints" are of no use in the struggle.

The reason I keep emphasizing (not worshiping) Marx and Engels has nothing to do with their personalities or "inspiring lives"...it is about some ideas that, in my view, have proven to be more correct than anyone else's ideas concerning the nature of class society and how to end it once and for all.

In other words, it's not a case of "pick a hero and live like him". It's more like "read Marx and Engels and learn to think like them."

Being a revolutionary is not like being a groupie.

:cool: