A Critique Of The Revolutionary Left

[MKS]

The modern Revolutionary faction of the left wing of the political spectrum is in my opinion a horribly flawed set of ideologies that wander aimlessly through the political conversation with no real agenda or plausible tactic. Being once a firm adherent to the precepts of Revolutionary Liberalism (Socialism/Anarchism), my critique is drawn through direct involvement with some of the parties and groups which comprise the varied array of the Left. The main point that I wish to communicate is that Revolutionary Communism, Anarchism etc is stagnate due to a lack of willingness to adapt to the changing environments of the world, which is both physically and ideologically different from the world of Marx, Engles, Luxembourg, and the founders of modern revolutionary principles. Their ideas may have had relevance in pre world war Europe, but now in a climate that has been drastically altered, their methods and maxims are antiquated and in most prove fallacious and in my opinion are a danger to liberty and equality. The modern revolutions in Russia, China, Cuba, and other nations proves that any endeavor derived from Marxism will usually lead to the creation of an entrenched vanguard which becomes sometimes more tyrannical than the regime it replaced. One cannot ignore the blatant human rights violations perpetrated by Lenin, Stalin, Castro, Che and Mao. All these men acted in part through an interpretation of Marxism. These interpretations are often denounced as perversions of the intent of Marx, however the fact cannot be ignored that Marx either through a conscious effort or through error allowed such perversions to be derived from his writings. Simply stated Marx’s written theoretical contributions are either too vague to construct a realistic movement or are in fact theories established in order to create just another system of power just as venomous to humanity as Neo- Liberalism or Imperialism.

[red team]

Fine, don't call what was established in those country Socialism then. As classically defined Socialism means the direct producers having direct democratic control of the production assets of society. This was clearly not the case in those countries that experienced those revolutions.

If looked at more objectively then what was actually established was an authoritarian form of a welfare state. But, keeping things in perspective what was it that these regimes replaced? Being citizens of the wealthy western powers we have the luxury of criticising the failings of an attempt at establishing a more equitable society from our comfortable material environment, but what most absolutists of socialism forget is that when operating in the real world when revolution hands you what you have which is what is left behind after the rich western powers take the loot and run, you have to make the best of the material and human resources you've got into that attempt at building your "socialist" society.

Suppose you don't have the technical or material capabilities that you need or want to develop a "purist" model of Socialism. Should you then leave the regime as terrible and unjust as it is in place? Russia was a monarchy and China was a weak warlord dominated semi-feudal society with large sections of its urban center carved up by foreign powers that were doing this for the purpose of looting the country. How do you respond if you were leading a progressive, revolutionary party. If the absolutist position of waiting for the "right" political, cultural and material conditions to evolve you'll be waiting forever because those conditions has already hardened into a form of stability.

Would the world have been any better if those revolutions never happened? Who's going to challenge imperialism and cultural hegemony? Would the world be better served if the western powers remained the dominant power on the planet with everybody else on the planet enslaved? I mean this literally. There are many colonies where the conditions were of virtual slavery for it's inhabitants. Furthermore, why do you think now there is a conservatizing effect on society where the powers that be are attempting to "roll back" the progressive gains of previous decades even within the confines of the western countries? That is because economic and ideological dominance breeds conservatism. You do not want anything to upset your source of wealth no matter how exploitive the process is because risking progress in finding alternatives would undermine your gravy train.

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by MKS+--> (MKS) The modern Revolutionary faction of the left wing of the political spectrum is in my opinion a horribly flawed set of ideologies that wander aimlessly through the political conversation with no real agenda or plausible tactic.[/b]
Funny stuff. Not all of them are flawed, nor do most wander aimlessly.


Originally posted by MKS+--> (MKS) The main point that I wish to communicate is that Revolutionary Communism, Anarchism etc is stagnate due to a lack of willingness to adapt to the changing environments of the world, which is both physically and ideologically different from the world of Marx, Engles, Luxembourg, and the founders of modern revolutionary principles.[/b] Obviously though you claim to have been an anarchist you do not know much about it.

Both anarchism and Marxism adapt and change to different times, though you will not often hear of many modern Marxist philosophers, they do exist (redstar2000 could be considered one).


Originally posted by MKS
Their ideas may have had relevance in pre world war Europe, but now in a climate that has been drastically altered, their methods and maxims are antiquated and in most prove fallacious and in my opinion are a danger to liberty and equality. The modern revolutions in Russia, China, Cuba, and other nations proves that any endeavor derived from Marxism will usually lead to the creation of an entrenched vanguard which becomes sometimes more tyrannical than the regime it replaced. One cannot ignore the blatant human rights violations perpetrated by Lenin, Stalin, Castro, Che and Mao. All these men acted in part through an interpretation of Marxism.Obviously a problem with Marxism rather then anarchism then hey what? And it could be argued that the problem is Leninism rather then Marxism, there do exist variants of Marxism that do not come from Leninism (e.g. autonomous Marxism).


[email protected]
These interpretations are often denounced as perversions of the intent of Marx, however the fact cannot be ignored that Marx either through a conscious effort or through error allowed such perversions to be derived from his writings.
An interesting comment, doesn't affect anarchism of course. Marx, like most people, changed and developed his ideas over his life time. This might be a reason for what you observe.


MKS
Simply stated Marx’s written theoretical contributions are either too vague to construct a realistic movement or are in fact theories established in order to create just another system of power just as venomous to humanity as Neo- Liberalism or Imperialism.So why not anarchism then?

(Oh and please use paragraphs. It makes it easier to read.)


red team: I don't know if I understand what you are attempting to do? Are you defending the "Marxist" states because they were not developed? (Which should mean according to Marx that they were not ready for the revolution to bring about communism.)

[MKS]

So why not anarchism then?

Anarchism is interesting because there has been no sustained anarchist revolution (the closest probably being the Spanish CNT and FAI during the Civil War). Anarchism to me is a great ideal; however it encompassing several blended ideologies of principles. My political leanings I guess could be construed as anarchist (Progressive libertarian), but I am careful not to let the ideology define my actions, as it seems so many revolutionary Leftists (Marxist and Anarchist etc) seem to do.


Obviously a problem with Marxism rather then anarchism then hey what? And it could be argued that the problem is Leninism rather then Marxism, there do exist variants of Marxism that do not come from Leninism (e.g. autonomous Marxism).

My point exactly. Marxism is vague and seems to be not one solid definition of socio-economic principles, but a scattering of ideological pseudoscientific rants.


Both anarchism and Marxism adapt and change to different times, though you will not often hear of many modern Marxist philosophers, they do exist

Although the adaptations do exist in some obscure mediums, they are not identifiable as plausible alternatives or sustainable realities; they remain as vague as their predecessors, only to be interpreted by the intellectual elitist that seems to contrive most of the revolutionary body.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 05:14 AM
Anarchism to me is a great ideal; however it encompassing several blended ideologies of principles
What?


My political leanings I guess could be construed as anarchist (Progressive libertarian)

What is a "progressive libertarian"? How is it connected with anarchism?


I am careful not to let the ideology define my actions, as it seems so many revolutionary Leftists (Marxist and Anarchist etc) seem to do.

How can your "ideology" not define your action?


Marxism is vague and seems to be not one solid definition of socio-economic principles, but a scattering of ideological pseudoscientific rants.

Can you justify this assertion please?

[Capitalist Lawyer]

My critique of the revolutionary left. I posted this on another thread, but it seemed to get ignored for some reason.


One thing I don't like about the communists is how they portray the U.S. military as a variant of Nazis in Germany during WW2. They always bring up Vietnam and Iraq and the death toll there. Question: How many of those who were killed in Iraq and Vietnam died in US government organized death camps or ordered up and carted off to gas chambers?

Answer: None.

I'm not saying that NO one in uniform has ever committed misconduct. But that's a far cry from referring to all as war criminals. At least I am willing to allow due process take its course, and allow for a fair trial to take place. You on the other hand are eager to act as a Communist regime would, declare them all guilty, put a bullet in thier head and charge the family for the cost of the bullet.

Of course, those weren't communist regimes, I will probably get.

I don't know what idealized version of communism you are studying, but Miriam-Websters.com defines communism thus:

1 a : a theory advocating elimination of private property b : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed
2 capitalized a : a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics b : a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production c : a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably d : communist systems collectively

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/communism

The rest of that mindless gobbledy-gook is full of mushy thinking void of how life is in the real world.

Just because the USSR was misnamed the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, didn't make them so. It was a Communist nation, ruled by the Communist Party for some 70 years.

But what about Sputnik and their nuclear capabilities?

Well, what bout them? The Soviets are the "proud owners" of the only nuclear power plant in history to nearly self-destruct and kill thousands and poison millions more.

But then, there is the case of India....

India is a nuclear power today, and has been for some 30+ years.

It is the world's largest democracy, and its economy is the world's 4th largest, and growing at an astonishing rate of over 9%.

It is a largely Hindu nation with a large Muslim minority (13%) and a highly educated middle class which masters English and advanced mathematics, not to mention a gazzillion computer engineers.

A "poor peasant country with a religious caste system" is largely the India of yesterday.

Maybe its time to "snap out of it", and realise "achievements" of 50 years ago, and not much else, are rather irrelevant in the world of the 21st century.

Anybody wanna buy a Russian car these days? Or a washer/dryer? Cell phone? TV? Is there ANYTHING on the open market that the Russkies make that anyone WANTS?

[Si Pinto]

One thing I don't like about the communists is how they portray the U.S. military as a variant of Nazis in Germany during WW2. They always bring up Vietnam and Iraq and the death toll there. Question: How many of those who were killed in Iraq and Vietnam died in US government organized death camps or ordered up and carted off to gas chambers?

Answer: None.


Prooving what?

Answer: Nothing.

The Americans used different tactics like bombing and firing missiles at civilian targets and blaming the weapons inaccuracy as the cause....WTF?

It obviously didn't occur to them that dropping bombs and missiles actually not accurate enough to hit their targets (despite boasting that they WERE) might cause large civilian casualties, did it?

or was it that they just didn't care about civilian casualties?

In Vietnam they used 'subtle' tactics like Napalming villages because they 'suspected' them of harbouring NVA.

or they dropped 'agent orange' and other chemicals all over the place not realising (or not caring, more likely) that both innocent civilians AND US forces on the ground would be affected.

Don't blame communists for bringing up US atrocities, blame your government for trying to cover them up.


I'm not saying that NO one in uniform has ever committed misconduct. But that's a far cry from referring to all as war criminals. At least I am willing to allow due process take its course, and allow for a fair trial to take place. You on the other hand are eager to act as a Communist regime would, declare them all guilty, put a bullet in thier head and charge the family for the cost of the bullet.

What fair trials?

Do you mean ones were the soldiers get aquitted?

I don't remember War Crimes trials following Vietnam or Iraq (first time), and as for Iraq now how many of those who have been beating, killing and generally degrading innocent civilians are now in jail?


I don't know what idealized version of communism you are studying, but Miriam-Websters.com defines communism thus:

1 a : a theory advocating elimination of private property b : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed
2 capitalized a : a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics b : a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production c : a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably d : communist systems collectively

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/communism

The rest of that mindless gobbledy-gook is full of mushy thinking void of how life is in the real world.


So why are you quoting it as a reference?

I've often found reading and quoting Marx (German guy, big beard, father of modern communism) to be highly effective when describing communism.


Just because the USSR was misnamed the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, didn't make them so. It was a Communist nation, ruled by the Communist Party for some 70 years.

But what about Sputnik and their nuclear capabilities?


You hear something thousands of times and you still don't know?

and your a lawyer???

Now make a well known statement out of the following words....

society, Communism, is, classless, a, stateless.

and what the fuck has Sputnik got to do with anything?

and as for.....


Well, what bout them? The Soviets are the "proud owners" of the only nuclear power plant in history to nearly self-destruct and kill thousands and poison millions more.

erm...3 Mile Island?

and that's only the one we know of (your government tried it's best to cover that one up), their may well be more.

and as a proud advocate of a country that refuses to sign up to any climate change treaties because it 'might hit your profits a tad' you obviously don't give a flying fuck about ecological damage anyway!!


But then, there is the case of India....

India is a nuclear power today, and has been for some 30+ years.

It is the world's largest democracy, and its economy is the world's 4th largest, and growing at an astonishing rate of over 9%.

It is a largely Hindu nation with a large Muslim minority (13%) and a highly educated middle class which masters English and advanced mathematics, not to mention a gazzillion computer engineers.

A "poor peasant country with a religious caste system" is largely the India of yesterday.

Thanks for the cappie influenced history lesson.

I like the way you left out that the 'workers' in India are some of the lowest paid in the world, with no union representation and millions of it's citizens way, way, WAY below the poverty line.

I'm sure the vast majority of Indians would like to thank their cappie oppressors (most of which are western congloms).


Maybe its time to "snap out of it", and realise "achievements" of 50 years ago, and not much else, are rather irrelevant in the world of the 21st century.

Anybody wanna buy a Russian car these days? Or a washer/dryer? Cell phone? TV? Is there ANYTHING on the open market that the Russkies make that anyone WANTS?

So you don't think forcing a country into an arms/space race that it can't afford (and neither could the US but it got bankrolled) might effect the ability to create and produce items?

Maybe it's time you changed your fucking tune, you say the same bullshit things that every cappie on here says and ignore the answers we give you so you can make the same stupid ignorant points a few posts later.


My critique of the revolutionary left. I posted this on another thread, but it seemed to get ignored for some reason.


Can't imagine why.

[The Sloth]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 01:35 AM
These interpretations are often denounced as perversions of the intent of Marx, however the fact cannot be ignored that Marx either through a conscious effort or through error allowed such perversions to be derived from his writing.


a conscious effort to have his work misunderstood?

hmmm, i don't think so. i'd go more with "error" than malice.. but, error or not, i don't think it's possible to say much about possible future arrangements.


Simply stated Marx’s written theoretical contributions are either too vague to construct a realistic movement or are in fact theories established in order to create just another system of power just as venomous to humanity as Neo- Liberalism or Imperialism.

i'm afraid that all speculations on the future, and on political change, are necessarily vague.. unless, of course, one tries to be dishonest.

then that's an entirely different matter.

[BobKKKindle$]

The main point that I wish to communicate is that Revolutionary Communism, Anarchism etc is stagnate due to a lack of willingness to adapt to the changing environments of the world, which is both physically and ideologically different from the world of Marx, Engles, Luxembourg, and the founders of modern revolutionary principles.

This point, if it can be called as such, it false for two reasons.

Firstly, it is an assertion to say that Radical leftists have not changed in order to take into account the changing global material conditions. The new Left of the 60s and 70s intorduced many new Concepts to Marxism and Socialism that are of special relevance to Western Post-Industrial Societies that did not undergo Revolution as Marx had previously hoped. Groups such as the Frankfurt School Analysed the new forms of Oppression and Control that exist in these countries. A Notable Example of this is Herbert Marcuse, who, in 'One Dimensional Man, analysed the creation of scarcity and False Wants, and how this results in a False Consciousness and an Illussion of Freedom and Happiness in a Society that is affluent in material terms.

Secondly, you are asserting that the Core Concepts of 19th Century Marxism have become irrelevent as the world has changed. Again, this is simply not the case. Lenin's Analysis of Imperialism, in which he argued that Nation States would conflict Militarily in their quest for Markets and Resources, seems, at least to me, to be even more relevant now than it was in 1905. Similairly, It is undeniable that a minority group in Society still owns and controls the means of production, and that a majority must sell their labour power as a commodity in order to survive. This clear division of Society means that concepts such as Surplus Value, and most importantly, Class Struggle, are still relevant to the 21st Century. The History of all Hiterto Existing Society is a History of Class Struggle - and all Future Society will contian Class Struggle, so long as we continue to operate under the Capitalist Mode of production.

[encephalon]

oh my. Through presupposition, you've proven leftism wrong. Congratufuckinglations.

You guys are seriously hilarious!

[godofthunder]

What fair trials?

The Captain who led the My Lai massacre got a whopping 2 years under House Arrest in his officer's quarters on a US military base. Yep, that's all he got. Of course, some of the enlisted men got longer time, in a PMITA Federal Prison.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Proving what?

Answer: Nothing.


Wrong answer.

It proves there is a "Grand Canyon size" difference between what the Nazis did in war and what the Americans do.


The Americans used different tactics like bombing and firing missiles at civilian targets and blaming the weapons inaccuracy as the cause?

It obviously didn't occur to them that dropping bombs and missiles actually not accurate enough to hit their targets (despite boasting that they WERE) might cause large civilian casualties, did it?

Or was it that they just didn't care about civilian casualties?

And how do you know they were firing missles at civilians?


In Vietnam they used 'subtle' tactics like Napalming villages because they 'suspected' them of harboring NVA.

Or they dropped 'agent orange' and other chemicals all over the place not realising (or not caring, more likely) that both innocent civilians AND US forces on the ground would be affected.

Don't blame me for bringing up US atrocities, blame your government for trying to cover them up.

Of course you have to go back some 40 years to provide an example US atrocities.


What fair trials?

Do you mean ones where the soldiers get aquitted?


Yes, fair trials are when some people get convicted, others get acquitted. Based on the evidence presented by the prosecution, and evaluated by his or her peers.


don't remember War Crimes trials following, Korea, Vietnam or Iraq (first time), and as for Iraq now how many of those who have been beating, killing and generally degrading innocent civilians are now in jail?

Oh i recall War Crimes following WWII. Ever heard of Nuremburg?

[MKS]

Firstly, it is an assertion to say that Radical leftists have not changed in order to take into account the changing global material conditions. The new Left of the 60s and 70s intorduced many new Concepts to Marxism and Socialism that are of special relevance to Western Post-Industrial Societies that did not undergo Revolution as Marx had previously hoped. Groups such as the Frankfurt School Analysed the new forms of Oppression and Control that exist in these countries. A Notable Example of this is Herbert Marcuse, who, in 'One Dimensional Man, analysed the creation of scarcity and False Wants, and how this results in a False Consciousness and an Illussion of Freedom and Happiness in a Society that is affluent in material terms.

Name one substantial Revolution that has taken place in light of these revelations. One of the problems with Modern Communism is the intellectual elites who take up residence in their ivory towers and ponder and theorize while the workers toil under oppression and exploitation. There intellectual flirtation with radicalism does nothing to progress the movement of egalitarianism, and furthermore works to establish a fixed upper class that will ultimately undermine any future movement. (As proven by the Russian Revolution)



Secondly, you are asserting that the Core Concepts of 19th Century Marxism have become irrelevent as the world has changed. Again, this is simply not the case. Lenin's Analysis of Imperialism, in which he argued that Nation States would conflict Militarily in their quest for Markets and Resources, seems, at least to me, to be even more relevant now than it was in 1905. Similairly, It is undeniable that a minority group in Society still owns and controls the means of production, and that a majority must sell their labour power as a commodity in order to survive. This clear division of Society means that concepts such as Surplus Value, and most importantly, Class Struggle, are still relevant to the 21st Century. The History of all Hiterto Existing Society is a History of Class Struggle - and all Future Society will contian Class Struggle, so long as we continue to operate under the Capitalist Mode of production.

Marxism has done nothing to achieve the demise of Capitalism, Imperialism or neo-liberalism. It has succeeded at helping to create some of the world’s greatest tyrannies. While Capitalism can claim a greater liberation of the people, Marxist Communism cannot. The answer to Capitalism is not Marxism, it is not Communism, and I don’t think the answer has been found yet, but the constant resuscitation of the dead corpse of Marxism only impedes the Progressive Liberal Movement.

[Enragé]

Name one substantial Revolution that has taken place in light of these revelations. One of the problems with Modern Communism is the intellectual elites who take up residence in their ivory towers and ponder and theorize while the workers toil under oppression and exploitation. There intellectual flirtation with radicalism does nothing to progress the movement of egalitarianism, and furthermore works to establish a fixed upper class that will ultimately undermine any future movement. (As proven by the Russian Revolution)

Look, you cant go from thought to practice that quickly because you have to gather support first(simply put, without the people behind you, no revolution). The gathering of support in western nations is extremely difficult because people have been lulled into a state of (class) unconsciousness by a mix of social welfare (which, as you can see now, is unable to be sustained for a long period of time, which leads to cutbacks, which leads to people taking to the street and the beginning of radicalisation - see france earlier this year), "education", propaganda, false hope ("if you work hard enough, everyone can be rich) and the glorification of material wealth, and thus the wealthy in our society (see "cribs", various kids' games which have as the goal the acquisition of the largest sum of money)

Thats why there hasnt been any revolution, not because the ideas are flawed.
And yes i agree partly with the comment about intellectual elites, but not all on the left fall into that trap.

As for vanguardism (in the sense that the vanguard becomes the new bourgeoisie), it is not inherent to Marxism, it is inherent to those ideologies which proclaim that they are vanguardist, which claim that the vanguard must be organised along hierarchical lines, which claim that "professional revolutionaries" are the only ones who could make revolution.
In fact, one of the oldest revolutionary leftist maxims, older than the idea of the organised, hierarchical vangaurd "The liberation of the working class can only be achieved by the working class itself" actually agree with you.


Marxism has done nothing to achieve the demise of Capitalism, Imperialism or neo-liberalism. It has succeeded at helping to create some of the world’s greatest tyrannies. While Capitalism can claim a greater liberation of the people, Marxist Communism cannot. The answer to Capitalism is not Marxism, it is not Communism, and I don’t think the answer has been found yet, but the constant resuscitation of the dead corpse of Marxism only impedes the Progressive Liberal Movement.

The link between marxism and the USSR and the like is in terminology only.

Marx has provided a good economical analysis of capitalism. Now we should cannonise him, far from it, we should study his work critically, taking from it what we need, and discarding the rest.
However to simply throw his works away would be...well... simply a waste.

Look
The bourgeois' first revolution (french revolution) degenerated into tyranny too, now didnt it?

[MKS]

As for vanguardism (in the sense that the vanguard becomes the new bourgeoisie), it is not inherent to Marxism

Marx preached authoritarianism, unlike his counterpart Baukunin who did not believe in the necessity of a vanguard or state. That is where Anarchists and Marxists separate.


The link between marxism and the USSR and the like is in terminology only.

The Bolsheviks were a Marxist Party, Marxist ideology and economics principles were used by Lenin, Stalin and Trotsky, as well as Mao, Che and Castro.

[colonelguppy]

are you talking about the forum? everyone seems fairly nice and respectful to me even though i'm a capitalist.

as far as their idealogy goes, thats something else, but everyone here seems on the level.

[Enragé]

Marx preached authoritarianism, unlike his counterpart Baukunin who did not believe in the necessity of a vanguard or state. That is where Anarchists and Marxists separate.

Marx is a bit ambiguous sometimes, that much certainly is true.


The Bolsheviks were a Marxist Party, Marxist ideology and economics principles were used by Lenin, Stalin and Trotsky, as well as Mao, Che and Castro.

they used marxist terminology to do extremely unmarxist things.

Anyway, apparently your only problem is marx.
Well then why are you *****ing at the WHOLE revolutionary left?

I am more of an anarcho-communist myself.

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 06:12 PM
Marx preached authoritarianism, unlike his counterpart Baukunin who did not believe in the necessity of a vanguard or state. That is where Anarchists and Marxists separate.

Marx and Engels stated that the ultra-democratic Paris Commune was the model for the dictatorship of the proletariat. I think you should read more Marx and stop repeating stereotypes.

[Janus]

Marx preached authoritarianism, unlike his counterpart Baukunin who did not believe in the necessity of a vanguard or state. That is where Anarchists and Marxists separate.
It's not that black and white. Marx certainly did not "preach" authoritarianism. In fact, he would be quite ashamed of those who have acted in his name today.


The Bolsheviks were a Marxist Party, Marxist ideology and economics principles were used by Lenin, Stalin and Trotsky, as well as Mao, Che and Castro.
They were all Marxist-Leninists. There is a difference.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 05:40 AM
It's not that black and white. Marx certainly did not "preach" authoritarianism.
Of course he did. Revolution is the most authoritarian act imaginable.

[Raisa]

I dont believe in things that are flawed.

The only flaw is the existence of the upperclass.

Because most of you are weak stupid people and you arent shit without your police state.

[MKS]

They were all Marxist-Leninists. There is a difference

The "Marxist" in Marxist-Leninist clearly shows the presence of Marxism, at least at the root of the formed ideology.



Marx and Engels stated that the ultra-democratic Paris Commune was the model for the dictatorship of the proletariat


Marx also commented on the necessity of a centralized power system or state.

So as I said before, Marxism is a useless ideology, either too vague or too easily manipulated in order to suit a purpose.


Because most of you are weak stupid people and you arent shit without your police state

First of all I am far from "upper class", whatever that means. Second of all I don’t live in a police state. But you know who did, a lot of citizens in the former Soviet Union, and some would argue that modern China is a police state as well as Cuba. All nations founded in some part by Marxism.

Someday history will bury Marx, and the world will forget about him, as he has done nothing worth while for the progress of humanity.

[Janus]

The "Marxist" in Marxist-Leninist clearly shows the presence of Marxism, at least at the root of the formed ideology.
Right, but that "root" has also been twisted and deformed in such a way that it is radically changed.


Marx also commented on the necessity of a centralized power system or state.
Right, which is the DoP. However, it needs to be ultra-democratic and visibly shrinking. These are characteristics of the Paris Commune that Marx explicitly applauded.

[MKS]

Let me ask a question; Why are you and the other "communists" so committed to Marx, why do you constantly defend not only Marx, but people like Lenin, Mao, Castro, etc?

[Janus]

If someone's ideas are still applicable to the present day, they can still be examined, used, and learned from.

Now I haven't defended Lenin or Mao's theories but the same justification is used by their supporters.

[rouchambeau]

Marx either through a conscious effort or through error allowed such perversions to be derived from his writings.

Fucking Marx. Where was that jerk when Castro was co-opting his words for the sake of power?

[MKS]

Where was that jerk when Castro was co-opting his words for the sake of power?

If you had read the entirety of what I wrote you would understand that the flaw in Marxism is what is important. Either it was too vague which allowed for such "perversions" by Lenin, Castro, Che etc, or he did intend such despotism, either way however it is his error that allowed such systems and governments to utilize his writings.

[hoopla]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 03:22 AM

Where was that jerk when Castro was co-opting his words for the sake of power?

If you had read the entirety of what I wrote you would understand that the flaw in Marxism is what is important. Either it was too vague which allowed for such "perversions" by Lenin, Castro, Che etc, or he did intend such despotism, either way however it is his error that allowed such systems and governments to utilize his writings.
Theres a guy on Urban, who argues that Marx is support for a ontological pluralist proof of God. I think you need to flesh out the (your) argument a bit.