WTF maoists.

[Avtomatov]

why is there so many maoists compared to stalinists?

[Forward Union]

Why are you still here?

[Avtomatov]

go away liberal

[Janus]

Most Maoists support Stalin.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 08:09 PM
why is there so many maoists compared to stalinists?
Do you not have access to wiki, marxists.org, or marx2mao.com? Could you not answer this yourself by studying the similarities of Maoism and Stalinism, their philosophies, their history, and their founders? Like Janus said most Maoists agree with Stalin, and I myself am a Maoist-Stalinist.

[England Expects]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 08:09 PM
why is there so many maoists compared to stalinists?
Yeah, good question comrade!

Why is Stalinism so unfashionable with all the other comrades? I think that they've all gone soft in the head as a result of their comfy, bourgeoise lifestyles. Maoism provides the ultimate revolutionary-chic accessory, the red book! This is clearly too much to resist.

[Avtomatov]

I dont have anything against maoists. Im like half maoist, half stalinist. I was just wondering.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by England [email protected] 15 2006, 08:19 PM
Why is Stalinism so unfashionable with all the other comrades?
Because he was an authorotarian, whos rule created a climate, essentially making proletarian struggle against the state in Russia impossible for the next few decades. I though we opposed the boss class whatever colour it was?

[Avtomatov]

authoritarian? whats wrong with the proles exercising there authority? Every real marxist is authoritarian.

There was proletarian struggle in the soviet union, they struggled against capitalist aggressors, both externally and internally. There is always proletarian struggle until communism.

It was kruschev and the revisionists that deserves the blame.

[Janus]

I was just wondering.
Mao's idea of people's war appeals more to revolutionary movements in Third World countries and presents an actual path for taking power unlike Stalinism.


whats wrong with the proles exercising there authority?
Nothing, but there is something wrong with a leader who claims to speak for the proles exercising all authority.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 08:31 PM
authoritarian? whats wrong with the proles exercising there authority? Every real marxist is authoritarian.

Except Stalin wasn't the entire workforce of the USSR, nor did he represent it. If you payed attention in your history class you would have seen the wave of reforms the Bolshevics made essentially ending workers power, before the civil war, placing it in the hands of Capitalist advisors. You'd also have heard about how pleanty of Communists and Syndicalists were excecuted for their critique of the actions of the Bolshevik party.

[Avtomatov]

Nothing, but there is something wrong with a leader who claims to speak for the proles exercising all authority.

Really janus? You are a decentralist? You know that is inherantly anti-marxist and revisionist. Stalin was elected, he represented the proletariat.

[Avtomatov]

Except Stalin wasn't the entire workforce of the USSR, nor did he represent it. If you payed attention in your history class you would have seen the wave of reforms the Bolshevics made essentially ending workers power, before the civil war, placing it in the hands of Capitalist advisors. You'd also have heard about how pleanty of Communists and Syndicalists were excecuted for their critique of the actions of the Bolshevik party.

Yah, damn, I should have listened to the bourgeoise propaganda. Too bad I wasnt indoctrinated.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 08:37 PM
Yah, damn, I should have listened to the bourgeoise propaganda. Too bad I wasnt indoctrinated.
And you expect that to convince people that you're right in debates?

[Avtomatov]

You made baseless claims, how am i supposed to counter them?

[Janus]

You know that is inherantly anti-marxist and revisionist
Marx actually supported decentralization. Even though he supported centralization to a certain extent, he never supported a great leader having any power.


Stalin was elected, he represented the proletariat.
That was his claim. There was never a national election of Stalin.

[Avtomatov]

Marx actually supported decentralization. Even though he supported centralization to a certain extent, he never supported a great leader having any power.

Certainly Stalin had a bit too much power, and i wouldnt trust anyone with that amount of power, but he exercised it properly.


That was his claim. There was never a national election of Stalin.


The party, the youth leaugue, and the workers unions nominated candidates. Everyone voted on the candidates. And then those elected voted for Stalin. It was something like that. I dont remember the actual terminology. But it was alot like cuba.

[Janus]

but he exercised it properly.
Yes, by taking out all opposition.


The party, the youth leaugue, and the workers unions nominated candidates. Everyone voted on the candidates.
Stalin wielded so much influence among the top that he came out top. He used his position in order to destroy his opposition, there was no election there.

[Avtomatov]

Yes, by taking out all anti-communists.
Edited for truth.


Stalin wielded so much influence among the top that he came out top. He used his position in order to destroy his opposition, there was no election there.
Tell me one of the people he purged that was a real marxist-leninist? Trotsky? LOL :D

[Janus]

Edited for truth.
Edited like a good Stalinist. :lol:


Tell me one of the people he purged that was a real marxist-leninist? Trotsky?
Well, since you support eugenics, it's pointless in debating with you on why mass purges and leader worship is wrong.

[Avtomatov]

Well, since you support eugenics, it's pointless in debating with you on why mass purges and leader worship is wrong.
More idiocy. You all seem to have this idea of eugenics as the emobodiement of all evil. People like you have got this vague idea that eugenics equates with: satan worship, murder, racism, the KKK, Hitler, Genocide, locust plagues, pederasty and every thing else gloom and doom.

[Gradualist Fool]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 08:09 PM
why is there so many maoists compared to stalinists?
Because Mao was better at keeping his violations of human rights a secret, making apologetics far easier. And there wasn't any popular opposition, as Trotsky was to Stalin. Plus, he was a new face. If Stalin had been born in the 1950's and established his dictatorship in Venezuela, most revolutionary Socialists would be right at his side.

[Avtomatov]

human rights

"The revolutionary despises public opinion. He despises and hates
the existing social morality in all its manifestations. For him,
morality is everything which contributes to the triumph of the
revolution. Immoral and criminal is everything that stands in its
way."
--Sergey Nechayev

[Gradualist Fool]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 09:43 PM

human rights

"The revolutionary despises public opinion. He despises and hates
the existing social morality in all its manifestations. For him,
morality is everything which contributes to the triumph of the
revolution. Immoral and criminal is everything that stands in its
way."
--Sergey Nechayev
That's a very brilliant way of putting it.

Do the members of this forum agree with that quote?

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by Blue Dog Liberal+Oct 15 2006, 10:26 PM--> (Blue Dog Liberal @ Oct 15 2006, 10:26 PM)
[email protected] 15 2006, 09:43 PM

human rights

"The revolutionary despises public opinion. He despises and hates
the existing social morality in all its manifestations. For him,
morality is everything which contributes to the triumph of the
revolution. Immoral and criminal is everything that stands in its
way."
--Sergey Nechayev
That's a very brilliant way of putting it.

Do the members of this forum agree with that quote?[/b]
I agree with that quote, however Avtomatov doesn't completely understand it's context. Nechayev was a working class (ie. he belonged to the proletariat and wasn't living off of other people) anarchist and his goal was to bring about a proletarian revolution. He wasn't the leader of a country, nor should the quote be used to justify Stalin and Mao's oppressive state.

[Gradualist Fool]

Originally posted by D_Bokk+Oct 15 2006, 10:41 PM--> (D_Bokk @ Oct 15 2006, 10:41 PM)
Originally posted by Blue Dog [email protected] 15 2006, 10:26 PM

[email protected] 15 2006, 09:43 PM

human rights

"The revolutionary despises public opinion. He despises and hates
the existing social morality in all its manifestations. For him,
morality is everything which contributes to the triumph of the
revolution. Immoral and criminal is everything that stands in its
way."
--Sergey Nechayev
That's a very brilliant way of putting it.

Do the members of this forum agree with that quote?
I agree with that quote, however Avtomatov doesn't completely understand it's context. Nechayev was a working class (ie. he belonged to the proletariat and wasn't living off of other people) anarchist and his goal was to bring about a proletarian revolution. He wasn't the leader of a country, nor should the quote be used to justify Stalin and Mao's oppressive state. [/b]
The quote shouldn't be used for anything other than to justify reformism. It clearly demonstrates the kind of extremist mentality shared by revolutionaries.

Anything which establishes the revolution is inherently just? And anything which stands in the way is inherently criminal? No rational person could follow such a line of reasoning.

It was used to justify Stalinism and Maoism because those are the only kinds of beliefs that the argument supports.

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by Blue Dog Liberal
Anything which establishes the revolution is inherently just? And anything which stands in the way is inherently criminal?
Yes.

It was used to justify Stalinism and Maoism because those are the only kinds of beliefs that the argument supports.
Incorrect. Stalin and Mao led a state, which in itself is completely reactionary. The state is what got in the way of the revolution in the Soviet Union and China, hence it is criminal.

The quote itself is meant to justify propaganda by the deed, not gulags.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Blue Dog Liberal+Oct 15 2006, 11:17 PM--> (Blue Dog Liberal @ Oct 15 2006, 11:17 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 10:41 PM

Originally posted by Blue Dog [email protected] 15 2006, 10:26 PM

[email protected] 15 2006, 09:43 PM

human rights

"The revolutionary despises public opinion. He despises and hates
the existing social morality in all its manifestations. For him,
morality is everything which contributes to the triumph of the
revolution. Immoral and criminal is everything that stands in its
way."
--Sergey Nechayev
That's a very brilliant way of putting it.

Do the members of this forum agree with that quote?
I agree with that quote, however Avtomatov doesn't completely understand it's context. Nechayev was a working class (ie. he belonged to the proletariat and wasn't living off of other people) anarchist and his goal was to bring about a proletarian revolution. He wasn't the leader of a country, nor should the quote be used to justify Stalin and Mao's oppressive state.
The quote shouldn't be used for anything other than to justify reformism. It clearly demonstrates the kind of extremist mentality shared by revolutionaries. [/b]
Yes, we happen to be extreme about freeing ourslelves from bourgeoise control. IT is nessecary.


Anything which establishes the revolution is inherently just? And anything which stands in the way is inherently criminal? No rational person could follow such a line of reasoning. Would you like to show me a critique of their reasoning, other than 'no sane person...' bollocks?


It was used to justify Stalinism and Maoism because those are the only kinds of beliefs that the argument supports. It also supports most kinds of anarchism and socialism. Anything but reformism in fact.

[The Feral Underclass]

Nechayev wasn't an anarchist, he was a Nihilist.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 15 2006, 11:37 PM
Nechayev wasn't an anarchist, he was a Nihilist.
yah and he was kinda insane

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension
Nechayev wasn't an anarchist, he was a Nihilist.
And his association with Bakunin was mere coincidence?

[Gradualist Fool]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+Oct 15 2006, 11:28 PM--> (Jazzratt @ Oct 15 2006, 11:28 PM)
Originally posted by Blue Dog [email protected] 15 2006, 11:17 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 10:41 PM

Originally posted by Blue Dog [email protected] 15 2006, 10:26 PM

[email protected] 15 2006, 09:43 PM

human rights

"The revolutionary despises public opinion. He despises and hates
the existing social morality in all its manifestations. For him,
morality is everything which contributes to the triumph of the
revolution. Immoral and criminal is everything that stands in its
way."
--Sergey Nechayev
That's a very brilliant way of putting it.

Do the members of this forum agree with that quote?
I agree with that quote, however Avtomatov doesn't completely understand it's context. Nechayev was a working class (ie. he belonged to the proletariat and wasn't living off of other people) anarchist and his goal was to bring about a proletarian revolution. He wasn't the leader of a country, nor should the quote be used to justify Stalin and Mao's oppressive state.
The quote shouldn't be used for anything other than to justify reformism. It clearly demonstrates the kind of extremist mentality shared by revolutionaries.
Yes, we happen to be extreme about freeing ourslelves from bourgeoise control. IT is nessecary.


Anything which establishes the revolution is inherently just? And anything which stands in the way is inherently criminal? No rational person could follow such a line of reasoning. Would you like to show me a critique of their reasoning, other than 'no sane person...' bollocks?


It was used to justify Stalinism and Maoism because those are the only kinds of beliefs that the argument supports. It also supports most kinds of anarchism and socialism. Anything but reformism in fact.[/b]
Well, when you say that everything which supports the revolution is good and everything which opposes the revolution is evil, then the revolution becomes almost like a religion -- the revolution is undeniably right and that which it opposes it is undeniably wrong -- truth is defined by the revolution itself, and so, what room do I have to argue? How can one engage in rational discourse when, by your own beliefs, I am automatically evil and you should oppose me by any means necessary?

If you're so intent on destroying everything in your path, it doesn't really leave room to re-evaluate whether you should actually even be doing that in the first place.

[Janus]

More idiocy. You all seem to have this idea of eugenics as the emobodiement of all evil
Forced eugenics is closely tied in with state-sponsored discrimination. There is a difference between supporting genetic engineering and supporting forced sterilizations,etc.

[Whitten]

Originally posted by Blue Dog Liberal+Oct 16 2006, 06:10 AM--> (Blue Dog Liberal @ Oct 16 2006, 06:10 AM)
Originally posted by Jazzratt+Oct 15 2006, 11:28 PM--> (Jazzratt @ Oct 15 2006, 11:28 PM)
Originally posted by Blue Dog [email protected] 15 2006, 11:17 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 10:41 PM

Originally posted by Blue Dog [email protected] 15 2006, 10:26 PM

[email protected] 15 2006, 09:43 PM

human rights

"The revolutionary despises public opinion. He despises and hates
the existing social morality in all its manifestations. For him,
morality is everything which contributes to the triumph of the
revolution. Immoral and criminal is everything that stands in its
way."
--Sergey Nechayev
That's a very brilliant way of putting it.

Do the members of this forum agree with that quote?
I agree with that quote, however Avtomatov doesn't completely understand it's context. Nechayev was a working class (ie. he belonged to the proletariat and wasn't living off of other people) anarchist and his goal was to bring about a proletarian revolution. He wasn't the leader of a country, nor should the quote be used to justify Stalin and Mao's oppressive state.
The quote shouldn't be used for anything other than to justify reformism. It clearly demonstrates the kind of extremist mentality shared by revolutionaries.
Yes, we happen to be extreme about freeing ourslelves from bourgeoise control. IT is nessecary.


Anything which establishes the revolution is inherently just? And anything which stands in the way is inherently criminal? No rational person could follow such a line of reasoning. Would you like to show me a critique of their reasoning, other than 'no sane person...' bollocks?


It was used to justify Stalinism and Maoism because those are the only kinds of beliefs that the argument supports. It also supports most kinds of anarchism and socialism. Anything but reformism in fact.[/b]
Well, when you say that everything which supports the revolution is good and everything which opposes the revolution is evil, then the revolution becomes almost like a religion -- the revolution is undeniably right and that which it opposes it is undeniably wrong -- truth is defined by the revolution itself, and so, what room do I have to argue? How can one engage in rational discourse when, by your own beliefs, I am automatically evil and you should oppose me by any means necessary?

If you're so intent on destroying everything in your path, it doesn't really leave room to re-evaluate whether you should actually even be doing that in the first place. [/b]
The product of the revolution is the right of every worker. Anyone who opposes our revolution wishes to take that away from them. Therefore they should be opposed.


Janus
Forced eugenics is closely tied in with state-sponsored discrimination. There is a difference between supporting genetic engineering and supporting forced sterilizations,etc.

Maybe he's considering the rights of the child above the selfishness of the parent in question?

[Labor Shall Rule]

I have always been curious over this fact: Could I be a "maoist", yet oppose Stalin?

[bezdomni]

Because Stalinism isn't a goddamned ideology!

[bezdomni]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 08:07 PM
I have always been curious over this fact: Could I be a "maoist", yet oppose Stalin?
Most Maoists are critical of a lot of things that Stalin did.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Whitten+Oct 16 2006, 01:23 PM--> (Whitten @ Oct 16 2006, 01:23 PM)
Janus
Forced eugenics is closely tied in with state-sponsored discrimination. There is a difference between supporting genetic engineering and supporting forced sterilizations,etc.

Maybe he's considering the rights of the child above the selfishness of the parent in question? [/b]
Ah yes, because the fucking child would exist without parents. Seriously, where the fuck do we find cretins like you?

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by Scarlet Hammer
Why not ban him? He doesn't seem to be making any good contributions to the forum, just seems like a reactionary spammer.
Why are you talking?

[AlwaysAnarchy]

Dudes this guy voted for EUGENICS!!!??!

Im sorry I would also have to vote to restrict him. Thats just not cool.

[Cryotank Screams]

Why not ban him? He doesn't seem to be making any good contributions to the forum, just seems like a reactionary spammer.

[Whitten]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 10:06 PM
I have always been curious over this fact: Could I be a "maoist", yet oppose Stalin?
In theory. However you couldnt oppose "everything" he did. Mao himself spoke out against a good number of his policies.

[QUOTE=Jazzratt] Ah yes, because the fucking child would exist without parents. Seriously, where the fuck do we find cretins like you?[/QUOTE

Oh right, so the child is the property of its parents...

If the parents want to abuse it for their own pleasure, thats ok "because the child wouldn't even exist without them" it should thank them for bringing it into existance....

If the parents force feed the child serious carcenogens is it wrong? what if they refuse to have the child treated as an embryo for an inherited form of cancer?

Ofcourse when we think of a human being as property we can justify anything, great bourgeois logic mate.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Whitten+Oct 17 2006, 07:29 PM--> (Whitten @ Oct 17 2006, 07:29 PM)
Jazzratt
Ah yes, because the fucking child would exist without parents. Seriously, where the fuck do we find cretins like you?

Oh right, so the child is the property of its parents...
[/b]
Up until the point of birth, yes. It is afterall a parasite until that point.



If the parents want to abuse it for their own pleasure, thats ok "because the child wouldn't even exist without them" it should thank them for bringing it into existance.... Where did I even imply that, fuckwit? I could infer from your line of argument that parents shouldn't be able to have abortions, as it's just a manifestation of their selfishness. I'd be a cretin, but I could.


If the parents force feed the child serious carcenogens is it wrong? what if they refuse to have the child treated as an embryo for an inherited form of cancer? Point one: No of course not, the child is born. Point two: They'd be stupid and should be discouraged, but in the end the child at that point is not an independant entity.


Ofcourse when we think of a human being as property we can justify anything, great bourgeois logic mate. Where the fuck did I say "the child is property" you strawmanning berk?

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Scarlet [email protected] 15 2006, 10:17 PM
I myself am a Maoist-Stalinist.
What can you possibly see in either philosophy?

[combat]

I myself am a Maoist-Stalinist.

Then you are also a menchevik and a reactionary.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 02:35 AM
Why are you talking?
Why are you? I actually try to post and contribute and add to the general forum, I am here to learn, work, and contribute, it appears that he is just here to sit and ***** and posts random stupid shit, like happy birthday to himself, and other such narcissistic posts.


What can you possibly see in either philosophy?

Try wiki, or any of the links in my signature.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 08:28 PM

I myself am a Maoist-Stalinist.

Then you are also a menchevik and a reactionary.
No, that would make me a bolshevik, and a revolutionary, since both Stalinism and Maoism are just continuations of Marxism-Leninism.

[Whitten]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+Oct 17 2006, 07:47 PM--> (Jazzratt @ Oct 17 2006, 07:47 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 07:29 PM

Jazzratt
Ah yes, because the fucking child would exist without parents. Seriously, where the fuck do we find cretins like you?

Oh right, so the child is the property of its parents...

Up until the point of birth, yes. It is afterall a parasite until that point.



If the parents want to abuse it for their own pleasure, thats ok "because the child wouldn't even exist without them" it should thank them for bringing it into existance.... Where did I even imply that, fuckwit? I could infer from your line of argument that parents shouldn't be able to have abortions, as it's just a manifestation of their selfishness. I'd be a cretin, but I could.


If the parents force feed the child serious carcenogens is it wrong? what if they refuse to have the child treated as an embryo for an inherited form of cancer? Point one: No of course not, the child is born. Point two: They'd be stupid and should be discouraged, but in the end the child at that point is not an independant entity.


Ofcourse when we think of a human being as property we can justify anything, great bourgeois logic mate. Where the fuck did I say "the child is property" you strawmanning berk? [/b]
Your ignoring the point. Your saying that a parent has the right to bring the child into the world to suffer when it would be easily correctable. The point is that the embryo will become a child. Now I personallygive an embryo less rights than a cold virus, but when the embryo is allowed to become a child then the child has certain rights. They have the right not to have someone decided to force a handicap on them.

and dont call me a fuckwit, if you cant debate in civil manner then dont do so at all.

[Jesusstick]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 09:11 PM
Now I personallygive an embryo less rights than a cold virus
I'm undecided about Stalinism-Maoism (at the moment, not forever), but seriously, a cold virus is a VIRUS, it's not even LIVING. How can that which does not even live have rights?

[Fitzy]

Jesusstick, i think it was an expression.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Whitten+Oct 17 2006, 09:11 PM--> (Whitten @ Oct 17 2006, 09:11 PM)
Originally posted by Jazzratt+Oct 17 2006, 07:47 PM--> (Jazzratt @ Oct 17 2006, 07:47 PM)
[email protected] 17 2006, 07:29 PM

Jazzratt
Ah yes, because the fucking child would exist without parents. Seriously, where the fuck do we find cretins like you?

Oh right, so the child is the property of its parents...

Up until the point of birth, yes. It is afterall a parasite until that point.



If the parents want to abuse it for their own pleasure, thats ok "because the child wouldn't even exist without them" it should thank them for bringing it into existance.... Where did I even imply that, fuckwit? I could infer from your line of argument that parents shouldn't be able to have abortions, as it's just a manifestation of their selfishness. I'd be a cretin, but I could.


If the parents force feed the child serious carcenogens is it wrong? what if they refuse to have the child treated as an embryo for an inherited form of cancer? Point one: No of course not, the child is born. Point two: They'd be stupid and should be discouraged, but in the end the child at that point is not an independant entity.


Ofcourse when we think of a human being as property we can justify anything, great bourgeois logic mate. Where the fuck did I say "the child is property" you strawmanning berk? [/b]
Your ignoring the point. Your saying that a parent has the right to bring the child into the world to suffer when it would be easily correctable. The point is that the embryo will become a child. [/b]
Utterly irrelavant, it is not a seperate entity until birth, Morally I agree with what you're saying, legally however I think your proposition is an example of enforced morality.


Now I personallygive an embryo less rights than a cold virus, but when the embryo is allowed to become a child then the child has certain rights. When it is a child it has rights. Not a moment before.
They have the right not to have someone decided to force a handicap on them. You seem to assume that in a leftist society people will be so irrational as to actually do such a thing. More disturbingly you think they should be forced into that frame of thinking.


and dont call me a fuckwit, if you cant debate in civil manner then dont do so at all. Why debate anyone in a civil way, when four letters can convey more than two pages?

[Whitten]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+Oct 17 2006, 09:36 PM--> (Jazzratt @ Oct 17 2006, 09:36 PM)
Originally posted by Whitten+Oct 17 2006, 09:11 PM--> (Whitten @ Oct 17 2006, 09:11 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 07:47 PM

[email protected] 17 2006, 07:29 PM

Jazzratt
Ah yes, because the fucking child would exist without parents. Seriously, where the fuck do we find cretins like you?

Oh right, so the child is the property of its parents...

Up until the point of birth, yes. It is afterall a parasite until that point.



If the parents want to abuse it for their own pleasure, thats ok "because the child wouldn't even exist without them" it should thank them for bringing it into existance.... Where did I even imply that, fuckwit? I could infer from your line of argument that parents shouldn't be able to have abortions, as it's just a manifestation of their selfishness. I'd be a cretin, but I could.


If the parents force feed the child serious carcenogens is it wrong? what if they refuse to have the child treated as an embryo for an inherited form of cancer? Point one: No of course not, the child is born. Point two: They'd be stupid and should be discouraged, but in the end the child at that point is not an independant entity.


Ofcourse when we think of a human being as property we can justify anything, great bourgeois logic mate. Where the fuck did I say "the child is property" you strawmanning berk?
Your ignoring the point. Your saying that a parent has the right to bring the child into the world to suffer when it would be easily correctable. The point is that the embryo will become a child. [/b]
Utterly irrelavant, it is not a seperate entity until birth, Morally I agree with what you're saying, legally however I think your proposition is an example of enforced morality. [/b]
Only to the same degree that causing such bodily harm on someone after birth is "enforcef morality".


When it is a child it has rights. Not a moment before.

Under Bourgeois law yes. but we of all people shouldnt accept the status quo or the familiar without question. We should rethink the entire founding principles on which we base rights, and that may end up with a set of rights that seem strange or alien.

I argue that intentionally allowing a child to be born with a correctable disability is the same as intentionally causing that disability on a living child, as a living breathing person will have to live with the results of that action. Obviously if no child were to be born (as in the case of an abortion at a reasonable stage) then no such rights can be accredited to the embryo.


You seem to assume that in a leftist society people will be so irrational as to actually do such a thing. More disturbingly you think they should be forced into that frame of thinking.

I assume that even with eugenics there will be stupid, irrational or confused people who may cause such harm to their children. There is always a small number of psychotic lunatics no matter what society is like.


Why debate anyone in a civil way, when four letters can convey more than two pages?

Because it gives your arguement a degree of credability, maybe?

[Gradualist Fool]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+Oct 17 2006, 08:12 PM--> (t_wolves_fan @ Oct 17 2006, 08:12 PM)
Scarlet [email protected] 15 2006, 10:17 PM
I myself am a Maoist-Stalinist.
What can you possibly see in either philosophy? [/b]
Power.

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by Scarlet Hammer
Why are you? I actually try to post and contribute and add to the general forum, I am here to learn, work, and contribute, it appears that he is just here to sit and ***** and posts random stupid shit, like happy birthday to himself, and other such narcissistic posts.
You do realize that you were telling the admins to ban him while you consistently say "Islamic-Fascist"? You of all people shouldn't be advocating CC action, fool.

You've contributed nothing but an inability to read and comprehend any post whatsoever. You claim to be a Stalinist-Maoist, but lack all understanding of the ideology and to top it off, you alienate yourself from other Stalinist-Maoists who are clearly more Stalinist-Maoist than yourself. I wouldn't be surprised if your claim to be a Stalinist-Maoist is just for the shock-factor and attention.

And if my posts were so useless, then why have they received so much attention?

[which doctor]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+Oct 17 2006, 03:12 PM--> (t_wolves_fan @ Oct 17 2006, 03:12 PM)
Scarlet [email protected] 15 2006, 10:17 PM
I myself am a Maoist-Stalinist.
What can you possibly see in either philosophy? [/b]
The chance that Scarler-Hammer would be able to rule over the workers.

[Cryotank Screams]

You do realize that you were telling the admins to ban him while you consistently say "Islamic-Fascist"? You of all people shouldn't be advocating CC action, fool.

I can't honestly see why you are so hung up on me calling terrorists, islamic and spectral fascists, I mean it's to the point where it's actually funny that you think that is a "violation," worth restriction or banishment, when it's not, and if you think it is, maybe your not understanding the meaning of the term?


You've contributed nothing but an inability to read and comprehend any post whatsoever

Reffering to our little fight, and is obviously a biased opinion, but go on..


You claim to be a Stalinist-Maoist, but lack all understanding of the ideology

Prove it.


to top it off, you alienate yourself from other Stalinist-Maoists

Whom have I alienated myself from? Personally, I haven’t seen anyone call themselves a Maoist-Stalinist but myself and very few have said that they were Stalinists, and at any rate, I highly doubt that I have alienated myself from anyone, so again I ask proof.


who are clearly more Stalinist-Maoist than yourself

Baseless babble, or do you actually have proof? I am actually eager to hear it.


I wouldn't be surprised if your claim to be a Stalinist-Maoist is just for the shock-factor and attention.

If you knew me, I do nothing fro shock-value, I don't care what gets me attention or the lack thereof, I am what I am, and if that shocks you I don't give two shits, I personally believe in the Maoist-Stalinist sect of Communism, if you find that shocking then I find you stupid, granted I know many people here have a brain hemorrhage when they hear anything about Mao and or Stalin, but that matters little to me, I say what I believe that's that.


And if my posts were so useless, then why have they received so much attention?

So does a spoiled brat in a super market; what difference does alot of attention make?


The chance that Scarler-Hammer would be able to rule over the workers.

Oh yea, that's my main goal, and the reason I am a Maoist-Stalinist, mhmm, all because I want to rule and be a leader :rolleyes:

[bezdomni]

Stalinism-Maoism isn't an ideology. Quit making things up.

Stalinism itself isn't an ideology. I don't know why so many people think it is.

[Cryotank Screams]

Stalinism-Maoism isn't an ideology. Quit making things up.

I know this, I happen to agree with both Maoism, and Stalinism, so thus I have labeled myself a Maoist-Stalinist, even though you don't regard Stalinism as an actual ideaology.

[bezdomni]

What about the parts of Maoism that said Stalin made some pretty big mistakes?

[Fitzy]

People call themselves Stalinist to emphasize that they are non-revisionist marxist-leninists.

[bezdomni]

Then there arises the problem between upholding Hoxha and Mao. Maoists despise Hoxha (an anti-revisionist) and vice-versa.

They are not 100% compatible.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 12:30 AM
What about the parts of Maoism that said Stalin made some pretty big mistakes?
I am critical of Stalin to some degree on some points.

[bezdomni]

Originally posted by Scarlet Hammer+Oct 18 2006, 01:00 AM--> (Scarlet Hammer @ Oct 18 2006, 01:00 AM)
[email protected] 18 2006, 12:30 AM
What about the parts of Maoism that said Stalin made some pretty big mistakes?
I am critical of Stalin to some degree on some points. [/b]
Then you are a Maoist. The "Stalinist" bit is redundant.

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by Scarlet Hammer
I can't honestly see why you are so hung up on me calling terrorists, islamic and spectral fascists, I mean it's to the point where it's actually funny that you think that is a "violation," worth restriction or banishment, when it's not, and if you think it is, maybe your not understanding the meaning of the term?
Uhm because I was restricted for saying that "Jewish Capitalist" wasn't anti-Semitic, even though I never called someone a "Jewish Capitalist." I don't think you should be restricted for saying Islamic Fascist, but if they're going to restrict one person, they may as well not be fucking hypocrits.

Plus, you are the type of person who would have voted for my restriction.

Reffering to our little fight, and is obviously a biased opinion, but go on..
Fight? It was you misreading everything I said. If you can't read what I wrote, why should I assume you can read what other people write?

Prove it.
You support Israel and it's existance.

Whom have I alienated myself from? Personally, I haven’t seen anyone call themselves a Maoist-Stalinist but myself and very few have said that they were Stalinists, and at any rate, I highly doubt that I have alienated myself from anyone, so again I ask proof.
Have you read this thread? The original poster is obviously supporting Stalin and Mao.

If you knew me, I do nothing fro shock-value, I don't care what gets me attention or the lack thereof, I am what I am, and if that shocks you I don't give two shits, I personally believe in the Maoist-Stalinist sect of Communism, if you find that shocking then I find you stupid, granted I know many people here have a brain hemorrhage when they hear anything about Mao and or Stalin, but that matters little to me, I say what I believe that's that.
I'm not shocked by Stalinists, but if you tell anyone outside of this forum they'll look at you like you're a genocidal maniac.

So does a spoiled brat in a super market; what difference does alot of attention make?
From their mom, maybe. People don't gather around in watch and rarely look over other than the glance to see what's going on.

[Stellix]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 10:22 PM
I dont have anything against maoists. Im like half maoist, half stalinist. I was just wondering.
Where country do you live in? Why do you worship dead tyrants?

I doubt Mao or Stalin are in your personal economic interests. Do you honestly want to live under their rule as opposed to where you live now? Would your life really be better?

[combat]

Those who defend Stalin and Mao on this forum often forget that they would have sent to a gulag or shot had they lived during this period.

[Fitzy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 01:53 AM
Those who defend Stalin and Mao on this forum often forget that they would have sent to a gulag or shot had they lived during this period.
Really? What is it about me that would have gotten me shot or sent to a gulag?

[combat]

You are a stalinist, but not a good one. In other words, you re too open minded for real stalinists.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by D_Bokk+Oct 16 2006, 03:19 PM--> (D_Bokk @ Oct 16 2006, 03:19 PM)
The Anarchist Tension
Nechayev wasn't an anarchist, he was a Nihilist.
And his association with Bakunin was mere coincidence? [/b]
Being an associate (or lover) of Bakunin doesn't make you an anarchist.

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by Black Dagger
Being an associate (or lover) of Bakunin doesn't make you an anarchist.
Is that the best you can do?

[Cryotank Screams]

Fight? It was you misreading everything I said. If you can't read what I wrote, why should I assume you can read what other people write?

I didn't misread everything you said I misinterpreted one thing; there's a difference, people make mistakes.


You support Israel and it's existance.

I stated more than once on that thread I DON'T SUPPORT ISRAEL, I said all they were/are trying to do is a be a state and exist, that's it, I never said I supported them.


Have you read this thread? The original poster is obviously supporting Stalin and Mao.

Yes, I know, but he did not come right out and say I'm a Maoist, Maoist-Stalinist, or Stalinist, how was I to know what his specific sect was?


I'm not shocked by Stalinists, but if you tell anyone outside of this forum they'll look at you like you're a genocidal maniac.

Sad, but true.


Then you are a Maoist. The "Stalinist" bit is redundant.

I guess in a way it may be a bit redundant, however I do agree with the basic Stalinist ideology, and liked some of theories put forth by Stalin, that is why I began to call myself a Maoist-Stalinist.

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by Scarlet Hammer
I stated more than once on that thread I DON'T SUPPORT ISRAEL, I said all they were/are trying to do is a be a state and exist, that's it, I never said I supported them.
I do recall you saying...

"Yea, you know those jews and their diabolic plan of having their own country, and living there in peace, :rolleyes: .

There is no struggle besides the struggle against islamic fascists, theological tyranny and idiocy, and terrorists, which is whom the israelis are fighting, why? Because muslims can't play nice with others.

However the israelis are also counter-revolutionary and in league with US and other oppressive institutions, so thus I will not say they are the good side, but they are the lesser of two evils."

and

"I don't have to, I watch the news, I've read the koran, and I have seen the way these people act."

You're swallowing the Israeli line like it's nothing. Not only that, but you obviously have a prejudice against Muslims.

Yes, I know, but he did not come right out and say I'm a Maoist, Maoist-Stalinist, or Stalinist, how was I to know what his specific sect was?
Yes he did...

"I dont have anything against maoists. Im like half maoist, half stalinist. I was just wondering."

Honestly, do you ever read through the thread before you bother to post or just look at the end and take the side that appears to have the majority of support?

Sad, but true.
Hence by initial argument...

[CombatLiberalism]

I doubt Mao or Stalin are in your personal economic interests. Do you honestly want to live under their rule as opposed to where you live now? Would your life really be better?

This is very true. Maoists advocate the total destruction of amerika. Massive reparations will be extrated from pig amerikans and sent to the Third World.

If it is indeed against his class interest to stand with the vast majority of humynity, then good for him! He should be praised for giving a damn.

[TC]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2006 10:08 pm
why is there so many maoists compared to stalinists?
uh...because Mao unlike Stalin contributed something meaningful to marxist theory and ideology so there is a certain, if limited, logic in identifying as a 'Maoist' but none in identifying as a 'Stalinist.'

The concept of "stalinism" is something essentially invented by some trotskyists as a catagory for their enemies on the left, but no one could possibly identify themselves in those terms because it would presuppose that the view held by some trotskyists is correct, which the people who they identify as "stalinists" would reject.

The only people calling themselves "stalinists" are people who ridiculously identify with the individual for childish personal reasons.

[bezdomni]

The concept of "stalinism" is something essentially invented by some trotskyists as a catagory for their enemies on the left, but no one could possibly identify themselves in those terms because it would presuppose that the view held by some trotskyists is correct, which the people who they identify as "stalinists" would reject.

I'd say it's also pretty prevalent among anarchists.

I can't speak for all Trotskyists, but I certainly don't consider "Stalinism" as an ideology, as I've stated before in this thread. A "Stalinist" is not somone so much influenced by (nonexistent) theoretical contributions, but rather, the historical events that led to "Stalinism" (ie, bureaucratization) in the USSR.

[Cryotank Screams]

I do recall you saying...


However the israelis are also counter-revolutionary

Right there, I specifically stated I do not support israel, I said all they want to do is exist, I do not support their existence, or any such foolishness, all I said was that they want to do is exist.


these people

"These people," as in any and all people whom are involved with terrorism and militant islam, they have a free will, and have chosen to be what they are, just as neo-nazis do, don't twist my words.


they are the lesser of two evils

Poetically speaking.


You're swallowing the Israeli line like it's nothing.

I'm not swallowing anything, read above.


but you obviously have a prejudice against Muslims.

No, I am feverishly anti-religion, the subject was islam, and militants muslims, thus why attacked them in the manner I did, if it was any other group, I would have done the same.


Yes he did...

No, he was vague;


I dont have anything against maoists. Im like half maoist, half stalinist. I was just wondering

Which says to me he is uncertain, and is in the process of choosing, his sect affiliation seemed vague to me, if he said I am Maoist, Maoist-Stalinist, or Stalinist then I would have known.


Honestly, do you ever read through the thread before you bother to post or just look at the end and take the side that appears to have the majority of support?

Yea, I do quite extensively actually, and I write my opinions down regardless of what other members are saying, I say what I feel, and I say what I believe, I'm sorry for some people agreeing with me, or me seeing "eye to eye," with a couple people, lol.

[D_Bokk]

Scarlet Hammer, you already replied to that post...

Anyway, I'll stop. I believe I proved the point I wanted to make. My goal isn't to get you restricted, it's to show blatant hypocrisy from the CC.

You need to stop following the lead of others and come up with your own damn opinion. You should also seriously reconsider what you label yourself. You appear nothing like the Stalinists I've spoken too and in addition to that, you alienate yourself from other Stalinists in order to fit in... and to keep the CC off your ass.

In regard to the last post you made before the roll back:

Originally posted by Scarlet Hammer
Yea, cause supporting comrades Mao and Stalin, when 98% of the forum will criticize, and possible restrict or ban you for it is really following the herd isn't it?
Being a Stalinist alone wont get your restricted, it's just that Stalin was: misogynist and homophobic. If you really support Stalin, then you'll likely have those two qualities as well. Not only that, but the Stalinists I've encountered have hated Jews with a deep passion. Those three things generally lead to them getting banned, not their authoritarian ways.

[combat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2006 11:38 pm

I doubt Mao or Stalin are in your personal economic interests. Do you honestly want to live under their rule as opposed to where you live now? Would your life really be better?

This is very true. Maoists advocate the total destruction of amerika. Massive reparations will be extrated from pig amerikans and sent to the Third World.

If it is indeed against his class interest to stand with the vast majority of humynity, then good for him! He should be praised for giving a damn.
Be serious. Nixon and Mao shook hands. What about the theory of three worlds? Maoism is a radical bourgeois nationalist ideology, nothing more, nothing less.

[Cryotank Screams]

Scarlet Hammer, you already replied to that post...

I know, however due to the error, my responses were deleted, so thus I reposted what I said to make my opinion known.


You need to stop following the lead of others and come up with your own damn opinion.

I have my own opinion, and I give it quit frequently when provoked, however I don't usually give it unless specifically asked, just a helpful tip I picked up from LaVey, ;) .


You should also seriously reconsider what you label yourself.

I have, I label myself as Maoist, though I still like some theories developed by Stalin, and such, and agree with the basic tenets of Stalinism, I do not think I fully fit the bill of a Stalinist, but totally fit the bill of Maoist, even though I support Stalinism, I see the point Soviet Pants made about the redundancy, so thus I have retracted my self-made title.

Side note: I do appreciate the maturity and civility of your post.

[bezdomni]

I still like some theories developed by Stalin, and such, and agree with the basic tenets of Stalinism
Out of curiosity, what are the basic tenents and theories developed by Stalin? The things I have read by Stalin are either wrong (to at least some degree) or completely uninteresting.

What "theoretical contributions" did Stalin make?

[Cryotank Screams]

What "theoretical contributions" did Stalin make?

I like mainly his two literary contributions such as "socialism in one country," because I can see the practicality in it, especially in this day and age, considering past historical events, and his "aggravation of the class struggle along with the development of socialism," because again I can see the practicality in this as well, and based on past errors of past revolutions, and see what has happened to both modern china and russia, I see the use and need for it as well.

I also like his interpretations of Marxism-Leninism, and Communism, however I have not read all of his work as of yet, and am not terribly well versed but from what I have read so far, I like and it intrigues me.

Stalin Archive I (http://marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/index.htm)
Stalin Archive II (http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/Index.html)


Out of curiosity, what are the basic tenents and theories developed by Stalin?

I would say the tenets are his interpretations of Marxism-Leninism/Communism as demonstrated in his writings, and his theories are his two literary theories, and his policies.

[CombatLiberalism]

Be serious. Nixon and Mao shook hands. What about the theory of three worlds? Maoism is a radical bourgeois nationalist ideology, nothing more, nothing less.

The world did not come to an end because of a handshake. As for the Theory of Three Worlds, it is very questionable whether Mao ever upheld such a thing. The phrase is reported second hand and gets promoted by Hua's and Deng's press, not Mao's.

Mao did uphold playing imperialists against each other, but that is not exactly the same thing as the geopolitics of Three World's Theory. For much of Mao's rule, this option wasn't even possible and the foreign policy more corresponded to Lin Biao's Long Live People's War.

[CombatLiberalism]

There is no such thing as "Stalinism." Even those reject Mao but uphold Stalin do not call themselves "Stalinists," they call themselves "Marxist-Leninists" or "anti-revisionist Marxist-Leninists." Stalin's contributions were not in the realm of theory. Stalin does not represent the kind of advance that Mao does.

[Salvador Allende]

I support Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin. I consider myself a Marxist-Leninist. I also support Mao. Modern "Maoism" represents a Left-Deviationist trend that China slid into from 1966 until 1976.

China at one point was the vanguard of Anti-Revisionism, but they soon took an ultra-leftist move and at the behest of Lin Biao and the Gang of Four, launched the "Cultural Revolution" which turned the state into anarchy and the assaults were equally launched against the workers as they were against the Revisionists. The main reasons for this error were that the Chinese accepted a Two-Line theory, basically, that you were either a Marxist-Leninist or a Revisionist/Right-Deviationist and the further left you were, the more Revolutionary. The second main error was the cancelling of the Socialist Education Movement at the beginning of the Cultural Revolution (as well as most education as a whole), which would have educated the people about Revisionism and its trends and therefore ensured a solid ideological Party based amongst the working people. With a populace which did not truly understand Socialism, it was quite easy for Left-Deviationist, Revisionists to gain power and turn the Cultural Revolution itself into a tool for Revisionism rather than against it. As we know, Lin Biao himself was a Soviet agent and when he was found out, attempted to escape to the Soviet Union. He was the true Chinese Khruschev, not Liu Shaoqi. And though many Ultra-Rightists were taken down such as Deng Xiaoping, many good Comrades were aswell, such as Zhu De and so the Party became divorced from the people and the people began to turn towards Right-Deviationism.

Hua Guofeng was correct in his arrest of the Gang of Four, however, he still ultimately saw the struggle as two-lines, rather than three and so he accepted the Gang as rightists (O_o) rather than Ultra-Leftists and thus rehabilitated Deng, an act which Deng would later repay by forcing Hua to step down and implementing Capitalism in China. The error of Maoism is that the modern form is a Left-Deviationist ideology, which sees class antagonism which doesn't exist, and thus encourages a class struggle which ultimately will turn the Peasants and Proletariat against each other, alienate the people and ultimately lead to the failure of Socialism.

I view Mao Zedong Thought until 1965 as very correct and it had many good ideas, such as the Mass-Line. But, I do think that the two-line struggle is incorrect and as Marxist-Leninists, we should struggle against Left and Right Revisionism in favour of Socialism.

As for the contributions of Stalin, honestly, he didn't make many ideological contributions except for the Theory of the Aggrevation of the Class Struggle under Socialism and Socialism in One Country. Stalin mainly carried out Leninism, and did not create any new ideological trends except the two Theories I have mentioned, both of which are correct, but I do think that the first, as correct as it is, does not go far enough in explaining that the only reason the Bourgeois is able to move and spread its ideas in Socialism is because the people are not truly educated and conscious, thus, the Soviet Union's fall to Revisionism and Capitalism following Stalin's death. I also think Enver Hoxha made an almost identical error in Albania by pretty much assuming Albania was special and thus, Revisionism was not to be worried about there. The only country which carried out a good ideological struggle against Dogmatism and Left and Right Opportunism is the DPRK, which today remains firmly Socialist.

[RedCommieBear]

Stalin's contributions were not in the realm of theory. Stalin does not represent the kind of advance that Mao does.

That is true. Stalin didn't make any major contributions to Marxist theory. However, (if you ask me) Stalinism does not refer to a real theory, but a certain way of action and policy.


Originally posted by Red Vocabulary
While claiming to uphold the traditions of the ideologies, Stalinism institutes a vast bureaucratic hierarchy, stunt or destroy free speech and liberties, and completely centralizes the executive structure of the nation — usually around one demagogue. Socially, economically, and politically, Stalinism shifts chaotically from purist, ultra-leftism (violent collectivization of farms and other property, purging of non-Stalin leftists, the "Third Period", etc.) to reactionary conservatism (militarism, patriotism, anti-Semitism, the Popular Front, and strong persecution of civil dissent).