To those in OI

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Where are you today, politically?

Why are you not revolutionary?

Do you believe you have a good understanding of revolutionary theory?

What revolutionary works have you read?

[Publius]

Where are you today, politically?

Nowhere. I no longer define myself in political terms as I no longer believe in any single ideology. Call me a pragmatist.



Why are you not revolutionary?

Because it's absurd.

What's to be gained?



Do you believe you have a good understanding of revolutionary theory?

Yes.



What revolutionary works have you read?

Mostly stuff on the internet. No books.

[RedAnarchist]

Because it's absurd.

What's to be gained?


Whats to be gained? How about -

- the emancipation of all workers from wage slavery
- the end of so-called democratic governments
- the end of nation-states which only divide us
- the bringing together of all humans
- the abolishment of money
- the end of the religious control of people
- equality
- an end to unequal health care and education
- an end to sweatshops in the Third World
- an end to the UN, NATO, EU and the US
- the creation of a society based on human need and not human greed
- everyone gets what they need, in return for giving what they can

etc, etc

[Johnny Anarcho]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2006 01:46 pm
Where are you today, politically?

Why are you not revolutionary?

Do you believe you have a good understanding of revolutionary theory?

What revolutionary works have you read?
I'm a Democratic Socialist with a membership in the Young Communist League of the United States of America.

I believe in the idea of "evolution not revolution".

Yes.

The Communist Manifesto, Quotations from Chairman Mao Tse-Tung, Marx for Beginners, Mao for Beginners, Introducing Trotsky and Marxism, the Autobiography of Malcolm X, Power To the People: History of the Black Panther Party, the People's Weekly World, and Dynamic Magazine.

[VonClausewitz]

Where are you today, politically?

When I get going, It's mostly authoritarian socially, and economically state-control for most of the frame-work things.


Why are you not revolutionary?

I had the commie phase when I was about 15/16, and all my friends listened to RATM, and it was fun for a while, and then I got a job, and went into the world myself, and realised what an utter bunch of bastards most people are, and thus disipated any compassion for a class I am fundamentally part of.


Do you believe you have a good understanding of revolutionary theory?

Fairly well versed.


What revolutionary works have you read?

Mostly entry-level stuff, I've read a lot of early Marx (the manifesto, das kapital etc), some broad histories of other leaders, and some of Guevara's diaries. I've also read some rather deep-theory works on the economics of socialism for my lectures, and have a couple of red friends, so I'm not exactly ignorant.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

realised what an utter bunch of bastards most people are

Most people are decent at heart man. It just seems that way sometimes because everyone is caught up in a wave of self absorption.

-Alex

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Because it's absurd.

What's to be gained?
Well look at all the bad things in the world today, potentially, an end to such things is what is to be gained. Potentially.


Mostly stuff on the internet. No books.
Well then your answer to question 3 should be "No".

[RevolutionaryMarxist]

Because it's absurd.

What's to be gained?

If you are working class, then you can gain a better future for your family/friends/those you care about, and release anger you feel at the problems in your society.

If your hedonistic, its quite exhilirating/lively to be a real revolutionary.

If your bourgeois, then you shouldn't be one, unless your a idealist and are attracted by ideas like 'freedom' and 'equality'.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Where are you today, politically?

An American. A citizen of the United States. I choose those candidates and propositions which I believe are in the best interest of my state, city, or are the right thing to do, from my point of view.


Why are you not revolutionary?

The American Revolution is on-going. It has momenet of greater societal "excitement" and unity. Many of my ideas are very revolutionary. The radical "left" does not have a corner of the market on what is revolutionary, though such people have lived in a radical left echo chamber for so long, such people belive to be revolutionary is to be anti-capitalist, pro-anarchist, and a general challenge to the family structure as we practice it in America (hetro or homo).

To answer the presumed question you are asking, which is, why am I not Revolutionary Leftist:

It's all a bunch of bull shit. Every bit of it. Everyone who pretends to be a commie wants POWER and nothing more. Everyone of your so called revolutions have done nothing but kill tens of millions, put up a bunch of big pictures of your leaders all over the place, and treat the citizens like puppets, owing their very lives to the state. A sad and pathetic view of life. Everyone of your so-called revolutions merely destroy lives, and ALL of the people living under such oppression rush to the United States, kiss the Statue of Liberty, and cry that there is such a place as America.


Do you believe you have a good understanding of revolutionary theory?

Who the fuck cares about an understanding of revolutionary theory. What does it buy you. You think that in socialist movements everyone breaks out a copy of Mao's Quotations or Das Kapital and tries to determine where the revolution is heading? Give me a break.

And the most insulting part of it all is that you all of you, collectively, conveniently argue that there has never been a Marxist nation; that the USSR and the PRC, or North Korea, or Cuba, or Vietnam are not communist nations, and never have been. AND YOU ALL HAVE THE NERVE TO CALL THE UNITED STATES ARROGANT!!!

Imagine if we in the US began pronouncing that no country has ever been democratic, and that we will determin who is and isn't democratic. You guys would go apeshit. We have an executive that is separate from the legislative, while Great Britain does not. What if we started explaining to the UK that they were "doing it all wrong".

Why hasn't someone...ANYONE...FUCKING ANYONE!!! created a Marxist state by the agreement of society???!!!?????

A classless society with no exploitation or leaders or bosses or harm or cruelty...where do I sign up?!? I'm THERE!!!

Why is nearly everyone at this site in the US or the UK? Why not run off to Botswana or some other place where you can live WITHOUT PROPERTY, because there is nearly none? What's wrong with you? You've using the internet, driving cars, and going to the mall.

Stop reading and studying socialism and start LIVING it!


What revolutionary works have you read?

1. The Declaration of Independence

2. The Constitution of the United States (taking the radical view of free speech, religion, and protest, and the revolutionary 14th Amendment, that argues equal protection of laws to all.)

3. Playboy (I just read it for the articles)

4. Robert Heinlein

5. My own beautiful prose.


A. Hamilton

[MrDoom]

The Declaratation of Independence and American Constitution are revolutionary?

Amusing.


It's all a bunch of bull shit. Every bit of it. Everyone who pretends to be a commie wants POWER and nothing more.
http://img169.imageshack.us/img169/6637/orlycastropj2.jpg

Sure that isn't your own supressed cappie desire reflected?


Why not run off to Botswana or some other place where you can live WITHOUT PROPERTY, because there is nearly none?
Because we want to make our own countries communst. You don't change society by running away from it; the hippies proved that well enough.

[Ol' Dirty]

Originally posted by Alexander [email protected] 12, 2006 08:49 pm





Where are you today, politically?


An American. A citizen of the United States.


To answer the presumed question you are asking, which is, why am I not Revolutionary Leftist:

It's all a bunch of bull shit. Every bit of it. Everyone who pretends to be a commie wants POWER and nothing more.

So what you are trying to tell me is that capitalists who "pretend" to be so want anything else?

I just shit myself with laughter. Really, I did. Emoticons really can't begin to express the hilarity I am feeling at the lunacy of your arguments.

Listen up, Al: for your information, we Communists aren't the "eeevil, godless heathens" you make us out to be. Do you think we we would stand up and applaud while witnessing what Stalin and Tito did their people? If so, you are very wrong. We socialists (Anarchist, Communist or otherwise), are, generally, well intentioned people. WE really want to make a positive change in the world, and I'm sure you do too. So please, don't paint us all with your "wannabe totalitarian dictator" schmeer, okay? Thanks.


Everyone of your

Their, actually. I'm no Marxist-Leninist


so called revolutions have done nothing but kill tens of millions, put up a bunch of big pictures of your leaders all over the place, and treat the citizens like puppets, owing their very lives to the state.

Read above.


And the most insulting part of it all is that you all of you, collectively, conveniently argue that there has never been a Marxist nation; that the USSR and the PRC, or North Korea, or Cuba, or Vietnam are not communist nations, and never have been.

There's a difference between a socialist state ruled by a communist party and a communist society. There's no such thing as a communist state. It's a contradiction in terms.


AND YOU ALL HAVE THE NERVE TO CALL THE UNITED STATES ARROGANT!!!

I'm from the U.S. too, brotha. I love American culture: Jazz, Hip Hop, Hamburgurs, BBQ's and all that stuff. I just don't particularly care for how the society is run, okay?


Why hasn't someone...ANYONE...FUCKING ANYONE!!! created a Marxist state by the agreement of society???!!!?????

First of all, calm down.

The reason is because many people (such as yourself) still think that we communists want to kill people. Hell, many people can't define it. This is because the capitalist class owns the presses, the means of production and, thusly, controls society.


A classless society with no exploitation or leaders or bosses or harm or cruelty...where do I sign up?!? I'm THERE!!!

Apparently you're not too serious about this statement if you're restricted.


Why is nearly everyone at this site in the US or the UK?Why not run off to Botswana or some other place where you can live WITHOUT PROPERTY, because there is nearly none?

That's probably because we're the ones with computers and acess to knoledge of communism.

[colonelguppy]

Where are you today, politically?

i don't know, labelling myself always seeme dlike a waste of time becuase everyone always uses different words to describe different things. i suppose a pragmatist really, although in terms of political parties i would probably be most inline with the american LP.


Why are you not revolutionary?

because i don't think we need a revolution, that and revolutions are often infinitely more harmful than the systems they try and replace.


Do you believe you have a good understanding of revolutionary theory?

well i know what revolutionaries say about revolution?


What revolutionary works have you read?

the communist manifesto (didn't really teach me anything i hadn't really picked up though) started das kapital but never finished because it was god awful... mainly i just picked up everything i know off the internet.


The Declaratation of Independence and American Constitution are revolutionary?

Amusing.

um yeah pretty much, they weren't exactly reactionary you know.

[Matty_UK]

Originally posted by Alexander [email protected] 13, 2006 01:49 am
Why hasn't someone...ANYONE...FUCKING ANYONE!!! created a Marxist state by the agreement of society???!!!?????
Because social progress is materialistic, not idealistic. You don't get a revolution through everyone agreeing that something sounds like a good idea, the material conditions have to be correct.

What you're saying is like living in the 13th Century and *****ing that nobody has successfully created a capitalist liberal democracy therefore it ain't possible.

[BobKKKindle$]

Where are you today, politically?

I am, and always have been a Revolutionary Socialist, who advocates the revolutionary reconstitution of society under a system whereby the means of production are socially owned and subject to democratic control. I believe Capitalism to be a system that results in a vastly unequal distribution of wealth and power, whether one is considering the class antagonism within a country or between countries,



Do you believe you have a good understanding of revolutionary theory?

I am critical of traditional Marxism, as I percieve certain problems in the Ricardo-derived Labour theory of value, which states that the exchange value ratios of two commodities are equal to the labour time expended on each commodity. However, I am well read in other Leftist literature, particuarly that which examines the psychological effects and means of control that operate under Capitalism (most notably the concept of alienation in Marx's economic manuscripts) in addition to the modern globalised form of capitalism,as described in Lenin's imperialism.

[BobKKKindle$]

had the commie phase when I was about 15/16, and all my friends listened to RATM, and it was fun for a while, and then I got a job, and went into the world myself, and realised what an utter bunch of bastards most people are, and thus disipated any compassion for a class I am fundamentally part of

Did you ever consider that the uncooperative behaviour you describe was not the result of an inner and unchangeable disdain for one's fellow human beings, but rather was a social psychology formed by the society in which they live, or, to be more precise, the underlying mode of production upon which the economic activity of that society is founded? And, following this premise, is it absurd to say that a change in the mode of production from one which contains class antagonisms, and alienates us from our fellow human beings, and contains a disparity between the social nature of labour and the private ownership of capital, to a mode of production based on cooperation and social control would result in a change in behaviour?

In other words : When you were in this 'communist phase' - did you never study the materialist analysis?

[BobKKKindle$]

Why hasn't someone...ANYONE...FUCKING ANYONE!!! created a Marxist state by the agreement of society???!!!?????

An Excellent Question ; I highly recommend you read Antonio Gramsci.

Gramsci pointed out that, despite the vast disparity in wealth under Capitalism, workers did not rise up and establish their power over capital and the bourgeoisie. Why? Because the Ruling class exercises a cultural hegemony over society which enables them to determine the worker's ideology - that is, the way they relate themselves to the world in which they live and those around them - through control over the means of communication. The Ruling class may also choose to 'divert' the 'attention' of the workers from the class antagonism to other antagonisms such as race and nationality. This is ever more prescient today, when the media is increasingly being controlled by a small number of profit driven corporations. That does not, of course, mean that we cannot challenge this hegemony - indeed, all the leftists on the board, by virtue of being leftists, have done so.

Note also Lenin's ideas on the role of the state as a mediator of class struggle.

[Alexander Hamilton]

To recent responses re: my political allignment:

Please read the question once more. It asked each of us to respond to the questions. They were personal questions and I responded with personal answers.

I read the comments about what I wrote and I'm not going to debate them. These are MY views based upon MY frame of reference and MY view of history and politics. I believe that's what the person who started the thread wanted.

A. Hamilton

P.S. I will take a moment to corrert someone who went WAY off the deep end in responding to my comment.

Muigwithania wrote:


Listen up, Al: for your information, we Communists aren't the "eeevil, godless heathens" you make us out to be. Do you think we we would stand up and applaud while witnessing what Stalin and Tito did their people? If so, you are very wrong. We socialists (Anarchist, Communist or otherwise), are, generally, well intentioned people. WE really want to make a positive change in the world, and I'm sure you do too. So please, don't paint us all with your "wannabe totalitarian dictator" schmeer, okay? Thanks.

Mugi, let's take it piece by piece. First, this one:
Al: for your information, we Communists aren't the "eeevil, godless heathens" you make us out to be.

I reread my comments and can't for the life of me figure out where you got the evil godless heathen stuff. I rarely write about religion and did not do so on this occasion.

I should have written "Everyone who pretends to be a commie LEADER wants only power.", as opposed to everyone who is a communist. That, if of course, an error on my part in writing so, though I was thinking leader as I wrote it.

Naturally, those struggling to create a better world should always be applauded whatever their views are, even if they are anti-my views.

I paint all commie LEADERS with the "wannabe totalitarian dictator schmeer", because those leaders deserve it. Whether well intentioned or not, all leaders who wish to create a classless society, whether well intentioned or evil in their heart, MUST become dictators, and people with absolute power will always and eventually become tyrants. (This is why I believe the Dec of Indep and U.S. Constitution are radical: they are based on the concept that power is a drug, and total power the worst of it.

You will recall that Lincoln had to suspend Habias Corpus and didn't let Congress meet for about 6 - 8 weeks. He was one of our best leaders, and his time from March through May, 1861, is the only time we had a dictator. Now imagine if he were to have stayed a dictator for all of his tenure (only 4 years due to his murder). There would hardly have been a Lincoln Memorial, let alone a United States of America.

The alteration of a free society to a Marxist one DEMANDS dictatorship. I understand this. The argument is simply made that a dictatorship WITH classlessness is superior to a free society WITH capitalists owning the tools of production. You can slice it or dice it anyway you want, but that about sums it up.

Stalin was a pretty tough and ruthless guy to begin with, but maybe he had a genuine, people based vision somewhere in his heart. Imagine what the USSR might have become if he had a genuine, equally powerful Congress to check his actions, and add credibility to what he tried to achieve.

A Hamilton

[t_wolves_fan]

Where are you today, politically?

Moderate conservative.


Why are you not revolutionary?

Because your theories make no sense at all.


Do you believe you have a good understanding of revolutionary theory?

Yes.


What revolutionary works have you read?

A little Marx and a lot on the internet. Nothing but incoherrent whining and *****ing about how life isn't fair and it should be fair and the government/society should make it fair for me. Literally, that's all it boils down to.

[MrDoom]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2006 07:43 am

The Declaratation of Independence and American Constitution are revolutionary?

Amusing.

um yeah pretty much, they weren't exactly reactionary you know.
It replaced one bourgeois parliament with another. Not revolutionary at all.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2006 04:12 pm

What the hell is this revolution thing you guys keep talking about on this forum...........
It's like totally a fantasy about sticking it to the man, man.

:ph34r:

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by MrDoom+November 13, 2006 11:04 am--> (MrDoom @ November 13, 2006 11:04 am)
[email protected] 13, 2006 07:43 am

The Declaratation of Independence and American Constitution are revolutionary?

Amusing.

um yeah pretty much, they weren't exactly reactionary you know.
It replaced one bourgeois parliament with another. Not revolutionary at all. [/b]
i don't think you know the definition of the word revolutionary

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by patton+November 13, 2006 04:34 pm--> (patton @ November 13, 2006 04:34 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2006 04:14 pm

[email protected] 13, 2006 04:12 pm

What the hell is this revolution thing you guys keep talking about on this forum...........
It's like totally a fantasy about sticking it to the man, man.

:ph34r:
Does it have anything to with the American revolution dude? When we kicked Poland ass................................... [/b]
Poland?

:wacko: :lol:

[VonClausewitz]

Bobkindles;

Did you ever consider that the uncooperative behaviour you describe was not the result of an inner and unchangeable disdain for one's fellow human beings, but rather was a social psychology formed by the society in which they live, or, to be more precise, the underlying mode of production upon which the economic activity of that society is founded? And, following this premise, is it absurd to say that a change in the mode of production from one which contains class antagonisms, and alienates us from our fellow human beings, and contains a disparity between the social nature of labour and the private ownership of capital, to a mode of production based on cooperation and social control would result in a change in behaviour?

In other words : When you were in this 'communist phase' - did you never study the materialist analysis?

Well, I was always fairly sure they were just gits. Gits trying to get by in the world no doubt, but still. I don't know where you're from friend, but where I live, there isn't much 'class antagonism', at least not in the traditional feudalist model. Most of the classism comes the other way - the proud workers being snotty at anyone that tries to hoist themselves out of the lower orders of society. There is of course a chap who owns the factory, or the shop etc, but he isn't some tyrannical overlord, cane and tophat complete; he's usually an entreprenuer who has made his own way in the world, so there is little top-down classism, at least at my local level.

Changing things to 'social control' (which is a lovely term by the way), wouldn't make much of a jot of difference here, as 'the people' have built these companies, and now work them. It's probably a bit different in the new world, but here in Britain, I don't see much class antagonism, at least not enough to make these people so miserable that they have to be basically nasty. I'd like to blame the current government, but well, Labour has done a lot for the little people where I live, so one must look elsewhere to pin blame.

[AlwaysAnarchy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2006 01:46 pm
Where are you today, politically?

Why are you not revolutionary?

Do you believe you have a good understanding of revolutionary theory?

What revolutionary works have you read?
I am a peaceful anarchist. As the name makes out.

I am a revolutionary, though I guess you can say I'm pragmatic in some of my strategies: meaning, I don't believe revolution is right around the door so let's make small changes now in the meantime.

I am still learning

I am still reading. :P

As long as I am allowed here I will continue to try to learn, restricted or not restricted. I'm not going to beg or cry to be let back in I am what I am: a young person, a learner , with lots of sympathy for the world's poor and oppressed and sad people who need our help :) I don't have all the answers or a big philosophy yet but dude who does? If this isn't the right answer then there's nothing I can do, I am what I am. :P ;)

[Ol' Dirty]

Originally posted by Alexander [email protected] 13, 2006 08:25 am





Listen up, Al: for your information, we Communists aren't the "eeevil, godless heathens" you make us out to be. Do you think we we would stand up and applaud while witnessing what Stalin and Tito did their people? If so, you are very wrong. We socialists (Anarchist, Communist or otherwise), are, generally, well intentioned people. WE really want to make a positive change in the world, and I'm sure you do too. So please, don't paint us all with your "wannabe totalitarian dictator" schmeer, okay? Thanks.


Mugi, let's take it piece by piece. First, this one:



Al: for your information, we Communists aren't the "eeevil, godless heathens" you make us out to be.


I reread my comments and can't for the life of me figure out where you got the evil godless heathen stuff. I rarely write about religion and did not do so on this occasion.

It was an allusion to U.S. Propaganda used against the U.S.S.R., but whatever.


I paint all commie LEADERS with the "wannabe totalitarian dictator schmeer", because those leaders deserve it.

I disagree.


Whether well intentioned or not, all leaders who wish to create a classless society, whether well intentioned or evil in their heart, MUST become dictators,

I don't see the logic in this observation.


The alteration of a free society to a Marxist one DEMANDS dictatorship.

Not a "one man rule" dictatorship, but the vdictatorship of the proletarian class.


I understand this. The argument is simply made that a dictatorship WITH classlessness is superior to a free society WITH capitalists owning the tools of production. You can slice it or dice it anyway you want, but that about sums it up.

This is why you should see what your "enemy" is about, read some of their works: [B]If you don't, you will probably end up looking like a total douche.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Muigwithania,

At this point, I do not see the point in discussing this matter with you any further.

A.H.

[RevolutionaryMarxist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2006 05:20 pm

It wasnt Poland dude? Was it India, or Japan, or France, or China........................
Wow

:rolleyes: :ph34r: :rolleyes:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolutionary_War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolutionary_War)

[CrazyModerate]

The reason I am against revolution is beacuse revolution, like all military or violent events, leads to authoritarianism.

I am not opposed to peaceful protest, but I am opposed to organized militaristic over throw through civil conflict.

In my view Lenin destroyed the attepmt at democracy in Russia simply because it might have had Capitalist ties. I would rather live in a capitalist democracy than a socialist autocracy. Stalin, Lenin, and Mao were monsters who murdered millions.

I most definately sympathize with Communist countries attacked by the United States and I do not believe the Americans are any better in this manner. I believe many socialist movements throughout the third world have been more positive than negative such as the ANC in South Africa and Allende in Chile. But the so called "communist" countries were too authoritarian. The reason the ANC and Allende were successful is because they ultimately made reconcilliation with others in their nations and supported democracy. In the Soviet Union and China, all opposition was murdered.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by patton+November 13, 2006 05:20 pm--> (patton @ November 13, 2006 05:20 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2006 05:14 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2006 04:34 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2006 04:14 pm

[email protected] 13, 2006 04:12 pm

What the hell is this revolution thing you guys keep talking about on this forum...........
It's like totally a fantasy about sticking it to the man, man.

:ph34r:
Does it have anything to with the American revolution dude? When we kicked Poland ass...................................
Poland?

:wacko: :lol:
It wasnt Poland dude? Was it India, or Japan, or France, or China........................ [/b]
Dude, it was Burkina Faso.

[Ol' Dirty]

Originally posted by Alexander [email protected] 13, 2006 06:06 pm
Muigwithania,

At this point, I do not see the point in discussing this matter with you any further.

A.H.
Fair enough. I don't see anyone preparing to change their stance.