What Person Has Done the Most Damage to the Left?

[harris0]

I'll have to give it some thought. Who do you think?

[Marukusu]

I would say Nixon, Reagan and Pol Pot.

[Intelligitimate]

It's a toss up between Trotsky and Khruschev, in terms of propaganda effect. Either Gorbie or Yeltsin as far as bringing down the USSR though.

[harris0]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2006 11:38 pm
It's a toss up between Trotsky and Khruschev, in terms of propaganda effect. Either Gorbie or Yeltsin as far as bringing down the USSR though.
They did the left a favor by bringing down the USSR and the lie it represented.

[BreadBros]

I don't think you can pin it on any one person. There was a wave of rightist leaders throughout the 70s and 80s who did a lot to disarm the left. Reagan in the US certainly did a lot to fuck up the American left. More to the point the US supported contras, military juntas in Brazil, Argentina and Pinochet all basically got rid of an entire generation of leftists. Same thing for repression against urban guerillas in Europe around the same time.

[combat]

Stalin, Noske and Ebert(in reverse chronological direction).

[propertyistheft]

any leader of a communist country has been so sufficiently demonized in the west to have permanently damaged communist history

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by harris0+December 09, 2006 12:31 am--> (harris0 @ December 09, 2006 12:31 am)
[email protected] 08, 2006 11:38 pm
It's a toss up between Trotsky and Khruschev, in terms of propaganda effect. Either Gorbie or Yeltsin as far as bringing down the USSR though.
They did the left a favor by bringing down the USSR and the lie it represented. [/b]
I agree with Intelligitimate, Revisionism split the Communist movement even more, and paved the road to capitalism. I'd have to go with Kruschev.

[Vargha Poralli]

Stalin and Mao. Both were Napoleons of socialist era.Tragedies of Communism.


@leftyhenry
I agree with Intelligitimate, Revisionism split the Communist movement even more, and paved the road to capitalism. I'd have to go with Kruschev.

I really don't understand why you guys always have a go with Niki ? Did he cahnge the structure of administration Stalin left behind ? no. He just denounced Stalin just to gain leverage against Beria and Molotov. He just removed some Stalin's statues and reverted back names of places which were named in honor of Stalin and removed his body from Lenin's mausoleum which is not enough to be a revisionist. For most part he just continued the accursed legacy of Stalin. :angry:

Mao opposed this move because he held Stalin as his leader and wanted the communists everywhere to accept him as a heir to Stalin's legacy as a leader of world communists.But Khrushcev's move shattered his dream.So he vehemently opposed not only Niki but also others who accepted him as a leader.

You guys also miss Brezhnev. After coming to power he reversed some destalinisation but you still held him as a revisionist. Why is that ? <_<

[Prairie Fire]

g.ram:

Revisionism is not necesarily reliant on wether or not a persyn likes Stalin.
Kautsky was also a revisionist, in terms of Marxism, and that was before Stalins time.

I wouldnt&#39; say that there is one persyn who has destroyed the left; Every pre-conceived notion against socialism is the painstaking work of years of anti-socialist propaganda, agitation and lies by the administrations that be.

Also, in my experience, the Left has a tendency to damage itself.
Just read any thread on rev-left, including this one. :D

Of course, some individuals have definately done more than their fare share:

Adolph Hitler ( Killed more commies than jews), Ronald Reagan ( "Americas President", El Salvadors gruesome nightmare), Joseph McCarthy ( May he be sodomized by Satan for all eternity), Chilean Strongman Augusto Pinochet,
Franco in Spain, Mussolini in Italy,and pretty much every other murdering dictator the world has ever seen .

There were alos those that wrecked socialism from the inside:
Nikita Kruschev, Leon Trotsky, Mikhail Bakunin, Josip "Tito" Broz, Karl Kautsky,
Earl Browder of CP-USA, etc,etc.

[harris0]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2006 06:36 am
g.ram:

Revisionism is not necesarily reliant on wether or not a persyn likes Stalin.
Kautsky was also a revisionist, in terms of Marxism, and that was before Stalins time.

I wouldnt&#39; say that there is one persyn who has destroyed the left; Every pre-conceived notion against socialism is the painstaking work of years of anti-socialist propaganda, agitation and lies by the administrations that be.

Also, in my experience, the Left has a tendency to damage itself.
Just read any thread on rev-left, including this one. :D

Of course, some individuals have definately done more than their fare share:

Adolph Hitler ( Killed more commies than jews), Ronald Reagan ( "Americas President", El Salvadors gruesome nightmare), Joseph McCarthy ( May he be sodomized by Satan for all eternity), Chilean Strongman Augusto Pinochet,
Franco in Spain, Mussolini in Italy,and pretty much every other murdering dictator the world has ever seen .

There were alos those that wrecked socialism from the inside:
Nikita Kruschev, Leon Trotsky, Mikhail Bakunin, Josip "Tito" Broz, Karl Kautsky,
Earl Browder of CP-USA, etc,etc.
Are you a Stalinist?

[RebelDog]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2006 09:52 pm
I&#39;ll have to give it some thought. Who do you think?
Mikhail Bakunin

[chimx]

Any leftist that has an "ist" suffix added to his or her name. No theoretician or ideologue has succeeded in emancipating working peoples from capitalism. Their persisting personality cults are historical anachronisms to actual contemporary problems faced by working peoples--inhibiting real class consciousness and socio-political power analysis.

The lefts dogmatic adherence to famed historic personalities is its largest hurdle to real class empowerment. As such, Bakunin and Marx both potentially damage the left as much as Reagan and Stalin.


edit add: to whoever said it, Joseph McCarthy probably hurt the right more so than he ever hurt the left. he left the political arena extremely discredited shortly after his fictitious "red scare", dragging the republican party in the mud with him, at least for a brief time.

[Lamanov]

Lassale, Kautsky, Lenin and their followers.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2006 04:35 am


Mao opposed this move because he held Stalin as his leader and wanted the communists everywhere to accept him as a heir to Stalin&#39;s legacy as a leader of world communists.But Khrushcev&#39;s move shattered his dream.So he vehemently opposed not only Niki but also others who accepted him as a leader.

eh? I don&#39;t think Mao thought that "Stalin was his Leader" leader of what? Mao opposed Kruschev revisionism because he knew that if he didn&#39;t socialism would quickly thaw out into capitalism very fast, which it did because there were quite a few revisionists and capitalists in the government of both the USSR and China despite Stalin trying to get rid of them through brute state measures, and Mao through mass class conscious movements.


You guys also miss Brezhnev. After coming to power he reversed some destalinisation but you still held him as a revisionist. Why is that ? <_<

No not really, he just sorta tightened control. He also expanded the Sino-Soviet Split.


Stalin and Mao. Both were Napoleons of socialist era.Tragedies of Communism.

...who both established, indusrialized, and turn their countries into superpowers, while greatly increasing living standards.


I really don&#39;t understand why you guys always have a go with Niki ? Did he cahnge the structure of administration Stalin left behind ? no. He just denounced Stalin just to gain leverage against Beria and Molotov. He just removed some Stalin&#39;s statues and reverted back names of places which were named in honor of Stalin and removed his body from Lenin&#39;s mausoleum which is not enough to be a revisionist. For most part he just continued the accursed legacy of Stalin. :angry:


Actually he did change the structure. His Credit & Interest reforms of 1956 were one example. Also, he made set a path of followers like Deng Xiopang who would de-socialize their country even faster.

[Pirate Utopian]

Liberals and left-centrists

[UndergroundConnexion]

Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot
then I could say Kennedy, for the blockade, and basically all the other u.s presidents...

Trotsky and Kruchev not, they hav merely have tried to purify the movement, give and alternative view...

[harris0]

I&#39;m going to go with Stalin, Lenin, and Mao

[Scout Lemar]

Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse-tung, Pol Pot, Kim Il-sung, and Kim Jong-il.

[Springmeester]

Adolf Hitler (why blame a communist?)

[chimx]

how about because stalin&#39;s reign resulted in 3 times as many deaths as hitlers?

[Dimentio]

The guy who invented the "gift economic theory".

[chimx]

how in the world has that hurt the left, historically speaking, considering it has barely, if ever, been implemented?

[Jazzratt]

Many leftists support the use of the gift economy. Which as Serpent pointed out on another thread, is a bullshit. Creating a bullshit for leftists to support harms the left, therfore that person is a prize tosser.

[Intelligitimate]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2006 09:55 pm
how about because stalin&#39;s reign resulted in 3 times as many deaths as hitlers?
Bullshit.

[Dimentio]

When it comes to the technocratic movement, I think that the person who&#39;ved done most damage is interrupt_00h. But he has done much harm to communism as well, publishing the Krutov manifesto and all other bullshit.

[Intelligitimate]

Only on this forum is every fucking thread filled with such anti-communism that it would make a Storm Fronter proud. You people sicken me.

[Dimentio]

Well, I do not think that this (http://www.vivamalta.org/forum/showthread.php?p=67155) qualifies as technocracy, communism or any other form of progressive-minded idea. But the person claimed to be all of that.

[Knight of Cydonia]

i think is one of my country&#39;s last president ( Suharto ), coz he&#39;s the one that claim People&#39;s Democratic Party which is the one and only leftist party in Indonesia, as a bad party...

[Prairie Fire]

Oh, fuck.

They might as well have made this thread fucking multiple choice:

"What person has done the most damage to the left"

A.Stalin
B.Mao
C.Kim Il Sung
D. Pol Pot

Or better yet, this thread would have been more appropriately named
"who hates Stalin?"

I think that there should be a thread called "Who hates Stalin" Pinned at all times. This way, all of these thread hijackers could go there, talk about how much they hate Stalin, and leave the rest of the threads alone.

By the way, check this shit out:


how about because stalin&#39;s reign resulted in 3 times as many deaths as hitlers?

The anarchist defended Hitler. :lol: I can&#39;t even make shit like that up.
For all of their anti-authortarian rhetoric, the fucking anarchists will defend Hitler over Stalin&#33; :lol:

Is any one even surprised that Chimx is a closet hitlerite? No? Yeah, me neither.
I just thought it was funny.


To answer HarrisO, we prefer the term "Anti-revisionist".

And serpent is totally right about the gift economy too.

[cecieby]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2006 11:38 pm
It&#39;s a toss up between Trotsky and Khruschev, in terms of propaganda effect. Either Gorbie or Yeltsin as far as bringing down the USSR though.
the enemy of eugene debs - woodrow wilson- the taft hartley act-robert kennedy--malcolm muguridge--peter sellers---british propaganda--hollywood propanda movies war movies oh well

[Joby]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2006 04:40 am
the enemy of eugene debs - woodrow wilson-
How about Debs enemy Sam Gompers of the AFL?
Gompers used the union to build himself, left unskilled workers out, as well as blacks and new immigrants. Also, he refused to offer any support to Debs in the Pullman Strike, and, later in the mining strikes. Didn&#39;t even endorse the Socialist ticket when Debs ran for President.

At a time when American Labor could have been united under one banner, it takes one labor leader thinking like a capitalist to fuck it all up.

[Dimentio]

The frog Kermit?

Seriously though, the question here for me is not about whether the person have raped dogs, killed 12 billion Russian children or built golden pyramids in the desert. It is rather how their theories have affected the movements during a very long time.

Gift economics, as well as the idealist notion that people ought to only think about others, fringes against the religious sphere, and shows a degradation towards idealist nonsense. Another group of that kind is for example radical feminists of that kind who wants to kill all men.

When it comes to interrupt_00h, that is creative destructiveness which I have seen on a micro-scale. The guy basically, together with Kolzene, killed tech.ca and almost wrapped up Soviet empire.

[bcbm]

The anarchist defended Hitler. I can&#39;t even make shit like that up.
For all of their anti-authortarian rhetoric, the fucking anarchists will defend Hitler over Stalin&#33;

Chimx asserted that Stalin was more damaging to the left in a general sense then Hitler was, which I don&#39;t think is anywhere near a "defense" of Hitler. For someone so preoccupied with anti-Stalin rabidity, you seem to show your own share against anarchists.

Of course, you argument is a logical fallacy anyway. One anarchist saying something does not extrapolate to all anarchists. :wacko:

[Sugar Hill Kevis]

while probably not &#39;the most&#39; damage to the left, J. Edgar Hoover probably deserves a mention...

[The Author]

Originally posted by black banner black [email protected] December 10, 2006 06:42 am
Chimx asserted that Stalin was more damaging to the left in a general sense then Hitler was, which I don&#39;t think is anywhere near a "defense" of Hitler. For someone so preoccupied with anti-Stalin rabidity, you seem to show your own share against anarchists.

The anti-communists say the same thing. Of course, they look forward to discouraging people from communism and encouraging them to embrace fascism and Nazism. Unfortunate that some of the Anarchists and a few uneducated Trots encourage the same thing- whether they want to or not.


Of course, you argument is a logical fallacy anyway. One anarchist saying something does not extrapolate to all anarchists.

Yet, some of them sound like a Ronald Reagan, or a Cold Warrior in their choice of words....

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2006 12:35 am
The anarchist defended Hitler. :lol: I can&#39;t even make shit like that up.
For all of their anti-authortarian rhetoric, the fucking anarchists will defend Hitler over Stalin&#33; :lol:

Is any one even surprised that Chimx is a closet hitlerite? No? Yeah, me neither.
I just thought it was funny.
Stating that someone killed more people than someone else is not "defending" that person.


The anti-communists say the same thing. Of course, they look forward to discouraging people from communism and encouraging them to embrace fascism and Nazism.

Pity "the other Che forum" dissapeared...you might have liked the company of the anti-semite "social nationalist" "anti-americanism" kind of wackos who use to be there.


Unfortunate that some of the Anarchists and a few uneducated Trots encourage the same thing- whether they want to or not.

Could you (or anyone) please explain this nonsense?

Don&#39;t worry kids, your addiction to Red Alert is going to dissapear soon and things will make more sense with you :lol:

[harris0]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2006 03:35 am
Oh, fuck.

They might as well have made this thread fucking multiple choice:

"What person has done the most damage to the left"

A.Stalin
B.Mao
C.Kim Il Sung
D. Pol Pot

Or better yet, this thread would have been more appropriately named
"who hates Stalin?"

I think that there should be a thread called "Who hates Stalin" Pinned at all times. This way, all of these thread hijackers could go there, talk about how much they hate Stalin, and leave the rest of the threads alone.

By the way, check this shit out:


how about because stalin&#39;s reign resulted in 3 times as many deaths as hitlers?

The anarchist defended Hitler. :lol: I can&#39;t even make shit like that up.
For all of their anti-authortarian rhetoric, the fucking anarchists will defend Hitler over Stalin&#33; :lol:

Is any one even surprised that Chimx is a closet hitlerite? No? Yeah, me neither.
I just thought it was funny.


To answer HarrisO, we prefer the term "Anti-revisionist".

And serpent is totally right about the gift economy too.
Are you really a Stalinist?

It&#39;s really amazing how many delusional people are on this board.

[Inviction]

Stalin was a revisionist. Anyone want to challenge that?

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2006 09:55 pm
how about because stalin&#39;s reign resulted in 3 times as many deaths as hitlers?
wtf are you talking about?


Are you really a Stalinist?

It&#39;s really amazing how many delusional people are on this board.

You are no marxist. You piss on historical materialism, and ignore all the accomplishments Marxist-Leninist Revolutions have made. While armchair socialists like you spit anti-worker rhetoric, Marxist-Leninist Revolutions consisting of millions of workers and peasants ready to put down their lives for socialism continue all over the world in Colombia, Peru, Indonesia, India, Nepal, Philipines, and other places.


I think that there should be a thread called "Who hates Stalin"

Done.

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...ST&f=12&t=60004 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?act=ST&f=12&t=60004)


Stalin was a revisionist. Anyone want to challenge that?

Care to elaborate?

[combat]

Marxist-Leninist Revolutions consisting of millions of workers and peasants ready to put down their lives for socialism continue all over the world in Colombia, Peru, Indonesia, India, Nepal, Philipines, and other places.


Revolutions you say?
The Farc are selling crack.
In Indonesia, maoists/stalinist were in a popular front that led to the destruction of the working class vanguard in 1965.
In Nepal, brothers of the RCP in the USA are about to join the government.
In the Phillipines, they are hostage takers.

Where is the revolution led by the working class and marxists you are referring to? :rolleyes:

[harris0]

Originally posted by LeftyHenry+December 10, 2006 08:42 pm--> (LeftyHenry &#064; December 10, 2006 08:42 pm)
[email protected] 09, 2006 09:55 pm
how about because stalin&#39;s reign resulted in 3 times as many deaths as hitlers?
wtf are you talking about?


Are you really a Stalinist?

It&#39;s really amazing how many delusional people are on this board.

You are no marxist. You piss on historical materialism, and ignore all the accomplishments Marxist-Leninist Revolutions have made. While armchair socialists like you spit anti-worker rhetoric, Marxist-Leninist Revolutions consisting of millions of workers and peasants ready to put down their lives for socialism continue all over the world in Colombia, Peru, Indonesia, India, Nepal, Philipines, and other places.


I think that there should be a thread called "Who hates Stalin"

Done.

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...ST&f=12&t=60004 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?act=ST&f=12&t=60004)


Stalin was a revisionist. Anyone want to challenge that?

Care to elaborate? [/b]
I&#39;m not really a Marxist no. The closest I get to Marxist thought is probably Rosa Luxembourg, and the council communists like Anton Pannekoek.

I&#39;m not a Stalinist crazy with a delusional sense of history like you are. That&#39;s true.

[Xiao Banfa]

From inside the left- Stalin was the worst.

Stalin&#39;s monstrous parasitic, bureaucratic leviathan fucked itself and it&#39;s client states.

His forced collectivisation was a complete mockery of leninism and lead to mass starvation.

His continual subordination of revolutionary movements to the diplomatic needs of "socialism in one country".

His idiotic "popular front " strategy.

How can anyone describe Stalin as anything but an anti-marxist revisionist.

Pol-Pot was also a nice poster boy for the imperialist-created strawman of "communism".

From the right, Reagan and Truman.

Truman for squandering any diplomatic goodwill between the United States and the USSR.

Reagan for being MacArthy&#39;s wet dream. For circomventing congress to annhilate left national democratic forces in Latin America.

[Krasnaya]

I am astounded at how unknowledgable you all are.

[harris0]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2006 09:57 pm
I am astounded at how unknowledgable you all are.
Why, are you a Stalin lover?

[chimx]

that&#39;s funny, cause i am constantly astounded at how knowledgeable i am.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2006 10:43 am
The anti-communists say the same thing.
That Stalin was more damaging to the left than Hitler was? No, I really doubt anti-communists give a shit about that. They might assert that Stalin killed more people than Hitler, a topic on which there is a great deal of debate and hardly only a domain of reactionaries. Just because you&#39;re on the left doesn&#39;t mean you need to defend a fucker like Stalin, and acknowledging that Stalin may have killed more people than Hitler hardly makes you a reactionary. You&#39;re


Of course, they look forward to discouraging people from communism and encouraging them to embrace fascism and Nazism. Unfortunate that some of the Anarchists and a few uneducated Trots encourage the same thing- whether they want to or not.


What, acknowledging that Stalin was a prick and his idea of "communism" was a bureaucratic, totalitarian hell will push people to fascism? Please. I think defending such assholes drives away more people than anything. I have no interest in defending bureaucrats and managers of "revolution:" they are my enemy too.


Yet, some of them sound like a Ronald Reagan, or a Cold Warrior in their choice of words....

Logical fallacy. Again.

[Krasnaya]

Why, are you a Stalin lover?

Why are you a fool?

Perhaps you people could learn something if you read a book or two not written by the bourgeoisie.

[Wanted Man]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2006 10:02 am
When it comes to interrupt_00h, that is creative destructiveness which I have seen on a micro-scale. The guy basically, together with Kolzene, killed tech.ca and almost wrapped up Soviet empire.
Heh, I was around for interrupt&#39;s final days. The problem was not just him, it was the posse of little closet(sometimes open) Nazis that protested against any punishments towards him with "He really has some interesting stuff to say&#33;&#33;" Luckily, that whole gang has been struck with the banhammer throughout 2005. Interrupt was always rude and annoying, but he knew his shit about war. However, when he turned into an open Holocaust-denying Nazi, he lost any respect that he had left, apart from his followers.

[Red October]

i think hillary clinton deserves a mention because so many people (mostly republicans) think she&#39;s a great example of socialism. so does jesus for starting a religion that eventually persecuted the left all over the world.

[Hiero]

Originally posted by harris0+December 09, 2006 11:31 am--> (harris0 @ December 09, 2006 11:31 am)
[email protected] 08, 2006 11:38 pm
It&#39;s a toss up between Trotsky and Khruschev, in terms of propaganda effect. Either Gorbie or Yeltsin as far as bringing down the USSR though.
They did the left a favor by bringing down the USSR and the lie it represented. [/b]
Did they do the people in the USSR a favour?

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by Hiero+December 11, 2006 10:18 am--> (Hiero @ December 11, 2006 10:18 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2006 11:31 am

[email protected] 08, 2006 11:38 pm
It&#39;s a toss up between Trotsky and Khruschev, in terms of propaganda effect. Either Gorbie or Yeltsin as far as bringing down the USSR though.
They did the left a favor by bringing down the USSR and the lie it represented.
Did they do the people in the USSR a favour? [/b]
I don&#39;t know about Khrushchev but Trotsky did tried to do. He gave clear explanation for the degeneration of its state apparatus but also a way to save it from bureaucracy. Its the mistake of the people of USSR to ignore it. And because of his works some of the former Marxist-Leninist like myself have not turned in to either social-democrats or abandoned Marxism all together.

First of no body can do people a "FAVOUR" . People must rise up for themselves. Stalin worshipers must understand what Che said.

LeftyHenry

eh? I don&#39;t think Mao thought that "Stalin was his Leader" leader of what? Mao opposed Kruschev revisionism because he knew that if he didn&#39;t socialism would quickly thaw out into capitalism very fast, which it did because there were quite a few revisionists and capitalists in the government of both the USSR and China despite Stalin trying to get rid of them through brute state measures, and Mao through mass class conscious movements.

Lefty seriously learn from history . Don&#39;t just read the dogmatical accounts of Mao.


No not really, he just sorta tightened control. He also expanded the Sino-Soviet Split.

Any how he deposed Khrushchev and reversed many of his policies. Sino-Soviet split does not have any ideological reasons behind hit . It was because of the Over-Inflated ego of both Chinese and Soviet leaders.


...who both established, indusrialized, and turn their countries into superpowers, while greatly increasing living standards.

Napolean did that to France. But no one can deny he utterly defeated the purpose of French revolution. The same goes for both Stalin and Mao. They defeated the ultimate purpose of the revolutions.


Actually he did change the structure. His Credit & Interest reforms of 1956 were one example. Also, he made set a path of followers like Deng Xiopang who would de-socialize their country even faster.

Look don&#39;t go on slandering Khrushchev and Deng for the failure of PRC and USSR. Its just shows your weakness of your accursed ideologies, that leader matter more than ideology. About the reforms of Khrushchev will you think anybody other than him will have acted differently ? and no Khrushchev did not change the structure nor did Brezhnev,Kosygin,Andropov etc Thats why when the bureaucracy replaced the structure for its own gain people did not resent it all together. They foolishly believed that it would bring great improvements in their lives.

[Lings]

The world could have been pretty different right now, if it wasent for Kautsky and Noske.

[Hiero]

I don&#39;t know about Khrushchev but Trotsky did tried to do. He gave clear explanation for the degeneration of its state apparatus but also a way to save it from bureaucracy. Its the mistake of the people of USSR to ignore it. And because of his works some of the former Marxist-Leninist like myself have not turned in to either social-democrats or abandoned Marxism all together.

First of no body can do people a "FAVOUR" . People must rise up for themselves. Stalin worshipers must understand what Che said.

That response was out of context to my question. Which was directed at Harros.

[Red Menace]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2006 12:36 am


Adolph Hitler ( Killed more commies than jews)


No he didn&#39;t.

but my picks would have to be Stalin, and McCarthy

[Knight of Cydonia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2006 04:20 am
In Indonesia, maoists/stalinist were in a popular front that led to the destruction of the working class vanguard in 1965.

yeah it&#39;s true...but how do you know that it was maoist/stalinist?

cause my indonesian history said that Dipa Nusantara Aidit, the leader of the Communist Party of Indonesia (PKI) was a Marxist.

[chimx]

since when do maoists and stalinists not call themselves marxists?

[Knight of Cydonia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2006 08:02 am
since when do maoists and stalinists not call themselves marxists?
oh .. they did? sorry if i don&#39;t know that :)

[combat]

If you have any doubts after that, please let me know:

http://www.massline.info/Indonesia/PKIscrit.htm

The KPI was the strongest Maoist/Stalinist party not totally in power in 1965 and it was defeated because of its front populist tactics (a crime against the proletariat in fact, as in China in 1927, Spain in 1936 and Chile in 1970).

[The Author]

Originally posted by [email protected] December 11, 2006 03:25 am
and no Khrushchev did not change the structure nor did Brezhnev,Kosygin,Andropov etc

Apparently, you have never heard of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR of 1960, or the USSR Constitution of 1977, as well as the Party Congress resolutions starting from the Twentieth to the Twenty-Eighth. Those are a few examples of the immense changes in the political and cultural superstructure, as well as the economic base, which took place from the 1950s throughout the 1980s in the USSR.

In China, the new 1982 Constitution and several changes in their criminal code are examples of changes in its superstructure as well.

Clearly, it would be wiser if you would at least do a little further reading before making such comments.

[The Author]

Originally posted by [email protected] December 12, 2006 12:17 am
front populist tactics (a crime against the proletariat in fact, as in China in 1927, Spain in 1936 and Chile in 1970).

It would be nice to have more information on precisely what "front populist tactics" were used and what worked and what did not, as opposed to sectarian drivel about how national liberation movements are supposedly "anti-proletarian."

[combat]

Stop your bully. We marxists have always supported the peoples of oppressed nations. However, this does not mean we had to support the criminal leaderships pretending to lead them. Shame on you for being an ally of the french bourgeoisie in 1936(just one example)&#33;&#33;&#33; The PCF forced its members to wave the blue-white-red flag instead of the red flag after the front popular betrayal. Shame on you once again&#33;

Read the stalinist betrayer Thorez speaking of national unity and development:

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/...60/post-war.htm (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/thorez/1960/post-war.htm)

[The Author]

Originally posted by [email protected] December 12, 2006 01:28 am
However, this does not mean we had to support the criminal leaderships pretending to lead them.

Such as?


Shame on you for being an ally of the french bourgeoisie in 1936(just one example)&#33;&#33;&#33;

And where did I indicate that I was an "ally" of the French bourgeoisie? That was a baseless comment you just made not supported by fact.


The PCF forced its members to wave the blue-white-red flag instead of the red flag after the front popular betrayal.

Could we have some concrete facts about the PCF and its actions instead of emotional raving?


Shame on you once again&#33;

Once again, you have made a baseless comment without fact.


Read the stalinist betrayer Thorez speaking of national unity and development:

All I see is information on the economic reconstruction of France after the war. Nothing about national liberation tactics like in China or Turkey, etc. What is it exactly you were trying to prove with this piece?

[combat]

What can I do for you? <_< Franckly if you don&#39;t know the PCF used the blue-white-red flag....


http://www.initiative-communiste.fr/wordpress/

It&#39;s there. What a shame&#33;&#33;&#33;

[Springmeester]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2006 09:55 pm
how about because stalin&#39;s reign resulted in 3 times as many deaths as hitlers?
bullshit.

[Xiao Banfa]

Stalin&#39;s monstrous parasitic, bureaucratic leviathan fucked itself and it&#39;s client states.

His forced collectivisation was a complete mockery of leninism and lead to mass starvation.

His continual subordination of revolutionary movements to the diplomatic needs of "socialism in one country".

His idiotic "popular front " strategy.

How can anyone describe Stalin as anything but an anti-marxist revisionist.

[liberdade]

i would go with Stalin and Lenin, n Ghandi if u want to go there his ideas of a non-violent approach to conflict is a slap in the face to any revolutionary leftist....those ideals dont work and still dont work not even in India but yet he is still screamed out everytime u talk about conflict situation

Not Mao either Mao had a lot of good ideas

[Pirate Utopian]

what damage did Lenin do?, he was one of the most inteligent men of leftism.

[stevec]

What is "the Left?" People throw labels around without defining them. Is "the Left" the visions of hypocrites and imposters of compassion that war and steal from the people they claim to serve? Is the "damage" to the Left measured by the attainment of power or intellectual consistency? Is "the Left" those ideas and actions that create enlightenment and solidarity or those ideas and actions that generate hate and division?

How can "the Left" unite the world if its first act is to define itself by a term that divides the world into opposites of left and right? (Seems a lot like the religious hocus pocus of "saved" and "unsaved.")

The Left? It doesn&#39;t exist. Like a country, it is just a meaningless pencil line on a piece of paper drawn by the mapmaker. It is an abstract idea etched into people&#39;s minds.

What you do with an abstract idea is one thing, but nothing can be done to "damage" it. No idea can be damaged or killed, they can only be understood or not. And to say that the image of an idea is damaged is to refer to its reputation, which has more to do with indoctrination and propaganda (and experience) than anything else. Ideas cannot be personalized, but persons can have ideas.

[Fawkes]

Stalin or Pol Pot.

[SmashCapitalism]

Pol Pot, Stalin, McCarty, Nixon (like that guy should have been accusing others of being bad leaders) and most other US presidents since communism rose, and Kim Jong-Il

[Lenin's Law]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 10, 2006 11:56 pm
i think hillary clinton deserves a mention because so many people (mostly republicans) think she&#39;s a great example of socialism.
Bah. The Republicans will say that for just about every Democrat running for President. Remember "Commies for Kerry" nonsense?

[Aurora]

btw Trotsky didnt support the destruction of the USSR,dipshits :rolleyes:

[RGacky3]

Who ever came up with the idea of the "american dream" I don&#39;t know who came up with it, but people freaking believe it, and it kills the "socialist dream." I also think Lenin messed up the left because thats what everyone thinks of now when they think of Socialism. In America what kills the Left is almost always War, Patriotism, and our Individualistic/Euntrepreniour culture, which was built over years of Capitalism.

So my top 2 would be, American dream inventor, and Lenin.

Also, I must add, Serpent is freaking wierd.

[Guerrilla22]

I&#39;m going to go with the less obvious choice. FDR. His "New Deal" policy was clearly aimed at underminding any socialist, communist or anarchist uprisings at a time when the US was closest to revolution occuring. We have never seen anything close to the worker&#39;s/social upheavel of the early 20th century ever since, including the 60&#39;s.

[AlwaysAnarchy]

I have to agree with the majority here: Lenin, Stalin and Trotsky REALLY messed up the Left in America big time, probably this goes for the rest of the world too. I would also add Mao and Pol Pot in there, you can&#39;t forget how they butchers tens of millions of there own people. With Mao you still have a personality cult that exists even to this day which is very sad. :(

[The Grey Blur]

:lol: Yeah Lenin, Stalin and Trotsky, the famous organisers of the American working class...

You should analyse the material conditions in China in regards to the revolution, the growth of the bureaucracy and other factors if you want to actually understand it instead of just coming off with trite liberal rhetoric.

And Pol Pot isn&#39;t a communist, anyone with half a brain would realise this - the US supported him&#33;

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by Big [email protected] 24, 2007 12:08 am
What Person Has Done the Most Damage to the Left?
AlwaysAnarchy

lol
:lol:


I&#39;m going to go with the less obvious choice. FDR. His "New Deal" policy was clearly aimed at underminding any socialist, communist or anarchist uprisings at a time when the US was closest to revolution occuring. We have never seen anything close to the worker&#39;s/social upheavel of the early 20th century ever since, including the 60&#39;s.

I agree. New Deal saved capitalism.

[which doctor]

Originally posted by Permanent [email protected] 23, 2007 04:51 pm
You should analyse the material conditions in China in regards to the revolution, the growth of the bureaucracy and other factors if you want to actually understand it instead of just coming off with trite liberal rhetoric.
And some people should analyze the material conditions of the Russian revolution, and the various other third-world revolutions what have happened or are happening instead of just coming off with a bunch of communist rhetoric. There aren&#39;t/weren&#39;t communist revolutions, they are/were revolutions for capital&#33; For competition in the international marketplace. And many of these capital revolutions did in fact succeed, China comes to mind.

[RGacky3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 09:34 am
I&#39;m going to go with the less obvious choice. FDR. His "New Deal" policy was clearly aimed at underminding any socialist, communist or anarchist uprisings at a time when the US was closest to revolution occuring. We have never seen anything close to the worker&#39;s/social upheavel of the early 20th century ever since, including the 60&#39;s.
Best answer I&#39;ve heard so far I think. At least for America.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by FoB+February 24, 2007 03:45 am--> (FoB @ February 24, 2007 03:45 am)
Permanent [email protected] 23, 2007 04:51 pm
You should analyse the material conditions in China in regards to the revolution, the growth of the bureaucracy and other factors if you want to actually understand it instead of just coming off with trite liberal rhetoric.
And some people should analyze the material conditions of the Russian revolution, and the various other third-world revolutions what have happened or are happening instead of just coming off with a bunch of communist rhetoric. There aren&#39;t/weren&#39;t communist revolutions, they are/were revolutions for capital&#33; For competition in the international marketplace. And many of these capital revolutions did in fact succeed, China comes to mind. [/b]
has little to do with the revolution. Why don&#39;t you go egg ralph nadar?

[Revulero]

Stalin and Pol Pot

[Tower of Bebel]

Originally posted by Red October
i think hillary clinton deserves a mention because so many people (mostly republicans) think she&#39;s a great example of socialism. so does jesus for starting a religion that eventually persecuted the left all over the world.

Hillary suckes indeed.
It was Petrus who started a religion, not Jezus. Jezus stayed jewish till his death.


What Person Has Done the Most Damage to the Left?

Lenin and Stalin. I appreciate Lenin, but he turned the USSR into a bureaucracy even more than was "necessairy". And what about Stalin? Stalin is mr hypocracy himself. He destroyed the revolution just like Napoleon.

[Lenin II]

Stalin, and the entire country of China.

Stalin, for killing more people than Hitler and getting the leftists blamed for it, even though he was actually fascist, not communist at all. And China for giving conservatives, capitalists and republicans everywhere an example as to why communism "doesn&#39;t work."

[Louis Pio]

Bernstein, Noske and Stalin, in no particular order.

[SmashCapitalism]

Kim Jong-Il II for being a hypocrite living in luxury with his rich friends while much of the country starves, also Stalin of course.

Jesus? The liberation theology, which helped spread socialist ideas throughout LA, was based on his teachings...

[Coggeh]

Im going to go with Stalin on this one ....