RCPigs

[PigmerikanMao]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=o4m1DcqJZz0

What are your opinions on the video? I believe it brings up excellent criticisms of Avakian, although I do not agree with the video entirely.

[YSR]

Interesting, but I think this video by the same person brings up more relevant points:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=EXX6ZysmW5o&feature=related

Note to MIMite scum: fuck off and die. I live in America and I'm a fucking internationalist.

[RedStaredRevolution]

Im in no way a fan of the RCP but this video is a bunch of bullshit. Go and watch the rest of this persons videos and theyre all crazy MIMist propaganda that doesnt make one bit of sense. Plus the robotic voice thing gets really really annoying after awhile.

[Red October]

Why the fuck do all of MIM's videos sound like Stephen Hawking trying to talk over techno music? "Hating America has a great beat and is easy to dance to" LOL. Seriously, MIM needs to fuck off and quit calling Western workers "parasites". They're workers, but they live in an imperialist country, so fuck them, right?

[Comrade Rage]

The RCP is crazy enough, but a MIMite criticism of them is pricelessly hilarious. :lol: :lol:

[Raúl Duke]

Are the MIM located in the 1st world?

What hypocrites... <_< (if they are...; also, if everything is happening in the 3rd world why don&#39;t they go join them...putting their theory to action.)

[Devrim]

So MIM are slightly more anti-working class than the RCP, not by a lot though.
Devrim

[PigmerikanMao]

Interesting, but I think this video by the same person brings up more relevant points:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=EXX6ZysmW5o&feature=related
Yes, that one&#39;s good too, though I don&#39;t think it actually goes into depth as to how the RCP is reactionary/revisionist.


Note to MIMite scum: fuck off and die. I live in America and I&#39;m a fucking internationalist.
The guy isn&#39;t MIM, he&#39;s from IRTR- a bit further out there...
All the same- it doesn&#39;t matter if his other videos are Bullshit, he still brings up valid points.

[PigmerikanMao]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 06:51 pm
Are the MIM located in the 1st world?

Iif they are...; also, if everything is happening in the 3rd world why don&#39;t they go join them...putting their theory to action.
Well, according to "Maoist" users like LiveForThePeople, thats youthful idealism. :mellow: lol?

[Devrim]

Originally posted by PigmerikanMao+November 15, 2007 08:40 pm--> (PigmerikanMao @ November 15, 2007 08:40 pm) The guy isn&#39;t MIM, he&#39;s from IRTR- a bit further out there...
All the same- it doesn&#39;t matter if his other videos are Bullshit, he still brings up valid points. [/b]
The points are not valid at all. The problem is that Maoism is an anti-working class ideology. It is explained on the &#39;video&#39; very clearly:

Mao Zedong
When imperialism launches a war of aggression against such a country, all of its various classes, except for some traitors can temporarily unite in a national war against imperialism.
It is a clear call for workers to give up their own interests, and die in wars of national defence on behalf of the bourgeoisie.
The problem is not which Maoist party has the most correct version of this line. The problem is that the line itself is anti-working class.
Devrim

[spartan]

The MIM are the most stupid thing i have ever seen since spartan&#33;

I mean look at this shit&#33;
www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgZ5k2n8k4s (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgZ5k2n8k4s)

[Dros]

This video is bullshit. There are legitimate reasons to oppose the RCP. But this MIMite (yes they do it to) shit about them being in league with the CIA is absurd. I also find it disturbing that you support the Iranian government. How can you call yourself a Maoist and support an ultrareactionary government? Yes it&#39;s fighting "Pigmerikkkan" imperialism but IRAN IS IMPERIALIST TOO&#33; They propagate their own imperialism in the Middle East and they are a FASCIST, REACTIONARY REGIME THAT BRUTALLY OPPRESSES THE MASSES OF PEOPLE&#33; I find it really funny that MIM and whoever the hell IRTR is criticize the RIM. While you guys make shity videos about how the proletariat in the first world is an aristocracy, the RIM is engaged in actual people&#39;s war&#33; MIM asswipes can spam the internet with bullshit and bad spelling but the RIM is actually walking the walk. You counter revolutionary "Maoist" fools hate the working class, misunderstand the basic elements of MLM, and your line on just about everything is ultimately reactionary because ALL YOU DO IS CRITICIZE THE ACTUAL REVOLUTIONARY MOVEMENTS or talk about how much you hate the working class&#33;

I wish the MIMite / IRTR people would actually make arguments instead of silly videos, bad spelling, and obnoxious slogans.

Oh and Devrim, why does advocating proletarian revolution (which yes will involve violence) mean that I "hate the working class"?

[Dros]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 10:02 pm
I just have to go to work soon.
I guess that makes you a part of that damn labor aristocracy. :D

[Dros]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 10:06 pm
Because in the current state of affairs- an attempt at revolution would be crushed and do nothing but hurt other communists and the working class. You should always look into WHEN a revolution can actually work.
Of course. When I say "revolution," it must be taken in context. I was talking about a violent revolution in the third world like that occuring in Nepal.

Revolution in the first worl will obviously take the shape of education and creation of class consciousness. But Maoism is not anti-working class. That&#39;s absurd. The fact that I advocate a violent revolution (ultimately, not necessarily everywhere right now) in which some will inevitably die does not mean that I hate the working class. Indeed, this kind of line is inherently counter-revolutionary.

[RGacky3]

Maoists are so damn wierd man, those videos look like a freaking joke, why do they have Robots talking?

[RGacky3]

just as a side not, something I&#39;ve noticed, the MIM and the CPUSA, get almost more hate on this forum than Capitalist parties, the MIM for good reason I think/

[PigmerikanMao]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 10:20 pm
Indeed, this kind of line is inherently counter-revolutionary.
Perhaps you should be more specific in your posts next time, comrade.

[Axel1917]

That video is a river of nonsensical bile, narrated by some anti-communist robot. Seriously, the RCP has all kinds of problems, but if anything, this video actually makes them seem somewhat credible compared to the makers of this "Maoist" video.

[Great Helmsman]

As it has been pointed out a billion times, they have nothing to do with MIM.

I don&#39;t think I want to wade in to a debate about this again because last time I ended up with a bunch of disgusting hateful diatribes against Islam in my PM inbox. I don&#39;t expect left communists to correctly identify who the exploiters and exploited are and what a united front means anyways.

If opposing western chauvinist thinking and supporting anti-imperialism somehow makes me anti-working class, then fuck the working class.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Electronic Light+November 16, 2007 07:27 am--> (Electronic Light @ November 16, 2007 07:27 am) If opposing western chauvinist thinking and supporting anti-imperialism somehow makes me anti-working class, then fuck the working class. [/b]
Yes &#39;fuck the working class&#39; seems to be the line of MIM. What makes Maoism anti-working class is not objecting to &#39;western chauvinist thinking&#39;, it is preaching class collaboration, and urging workers to die on behalf of &#39;their own&#39; bourgeoisie.


Electronic Light
I don&#39;t think I want to wade in to a debate about this again because last time I ended up with a bunch of disgusting hateful diatribes against Islam in my PM inbox. I don&#39;t expect left communists to correctly identify who the exploiters and exploited are and what a united front means anyways.

The proximity of these two statements seems to imply that &#39;hateful diatribes against Islam&#39; were being sent to you by members of the communist. I am certain that they weren&#39;t, and I would like you to either produce some evidence that they were, or clarify the point.

Devrim

[KC]

If opposing western chauvinist thinking and supporting anti-imperialism somehow makes me anti-working class, then fuck the working class.

You&#39;re not "supporting anti-imperialism"; you&#39;re merely supporting one bourgeois faction (the national bourgeoisie) against another (the foreign bourgeoisie). Imperialism isn&#39;t simply a form of exploitation whereby one "imperialist" nation dominates another; it is an entire development of capitalism. In other words, one cannot be anti-imperialist without being anti-capitalist, and one cannot be anti-capitalist by supporting any bourgeois "resistance" movements.

[Communist Pear]

Wow, I haven&#39;t heard so many bullshit in a single video EVER. It completely mixes up opinions and facts. And the computer voice is NOT cool. But I&#39;m probably viewing it out of the eyes of the "parasite minority". It also seems to forget that every "peaceful" revolution always comes from the more intelligent bourgeoise who want to help the exploited, just like it happened in the French revolution. I think the bourgeoise and the "working class" should work together to create a better society.

[Comrade Rage]

I&#39;m still laughing about a voice, that sounds like an automated phone line, calling Avakian a &#39;cracker pig Maoist&#39;&#33; :lol:

On a serious note, the MIM, as crazy as they are, are correct in challenging Avakian&#39;s opposition to Iran.

[PigmerikanMao]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 07:33 am
Yes &#39;fuck the working class&#39; seems to be the line of MIM. What makes Maoism anti-working class is not objecting to &#39;western chauvinist thinking&#39;, it is preaching class collaboration, and urging workers to die on behalf of &#39;their own&#39; bourgeoisie.
The Imperialists in an occupied nation must be cast out before a war of liberation can start- it would not make sense for a people&#39;s movement to overthrow a puppet regime if it could just be reinstalled the next day by the exploiters- that is why the communists leading the struggle should be willing to join with any other group that shares their enemy in common. Kill the monster- then take the weaker kingdom.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

IRAN IS IMPERIALIST TOO&#33; They propagate their own imperialism in the Middle East and they are a FASCIST, REACTIONARY REGIME THAT BRUTALLY OPPRESSES THE MASSES OF PEOPLE&#33;

No it isn&#39;t comrade I don&#39;t think you fully understand imperialism if you think Iran is imperialist. Iran is an oppressed nation, it isn&#39;t fascist, Yes Iran has a reactionary line on homosexuality and women, but it is a nation which has kicked out the US from its oil fields and is fighting back against imperialism it also has a progressive role in the liberation of palestine supporting liberation groups.

[jacobin1949]

Not only has MIM endorsed Osama they now endorse Feudalists closer to home....


Time for anti-war movement to reach out to pro-life movement

The pro-life movement is splintering with Pat Robertson going to Giuliani,(1) another section going to Thompson(2) and others going to Huckabee(3) in the race for the Republican Party nomination. Since Thompson did work for the pro-feminist "choice" movement and Giuliani is pro-choice, by Amerikan standards, Huckabee is the logical choice for family values voters. It&#39;s time for the anti-war movement to point out the obvious-- that the campaign against so-called "Islamofascism" is not compatible with family values.

It is the united &#036;tates and its Satanic allies sending the most females into combat. Once in Abu Ghraib, females like Lynndie England act just like pornographic men. Sending females to combat has to do with appeasing the blue states (states which vote for Democrats).

Now the crafty Yale-educated Pat Robertson(4) sees that the Iraqi insurgents have made war an unpopular topic in the united &#036;tates. The Amerikan public opposes a conventional war with Iran expanding from Iraq(5) and only 52% so far support a war to get Iran&#39;s nukes.(6) Within public opinion, the blue states are more opposed to the war, and the red states are wobbling too. Ron Paul is making gains among the military families.(7) Instead of sticking with pro-life family values, Pat Robertson moved to endorse Giuliani.

The reason for this is that the bottom line is Iran and such places are more pro-life than the Republican Party. So then the question is why the pro-life movement is lining up with these parties opposing "Islamofascism."

Saddam Hussein, Ahmadinejad--pretty much any politician of the Islamic countries is on average more opposed to pornography and Hollywood than the Republican Party.

The Republican Party held together when the Soviet Union was the main enemy. The Soviet Union had a more pro-feminist stand on abortion than the Republican Party. Hence family values and attacking the Soviet Union seemed to go together. Now that the Iraq War is going badly, the means of stitching together pro-war public opinion have to change. Iran and Afghanistan are not the Soviet Union.

MIM is working against colonialism and imperialist war every day. We invite the pro-life movement to join us.

Notes:
1. http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/election...ions111007.html (http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/elections/elections111007.html)
2. http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dw...on1.d44586.html (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/nation/stories/DN-righttolife_14nat.ART.State.Edition1.d44586.html)
3. http://www.earnedmedia.org/tg1114.htm
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Robertson
5. http://www.pantagraph.com/articles/2007/10...6c363683513.txt (http://www.pantagraph.com/articles/2007/10/27/news/doc4723d277d876c363683513.txt)
6. http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1379
7. http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/173...against_the_war (http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/17323345/ron_paul_a_republican_takes_the_lead_against_the_w ar)

[RNK]

That post didn&#39;t even make sense to me.

[Great Helmsman]

I think MIM has made some important contributions, but I don&#39;t understand what they were trying to get at there.

[An archist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 02:33 am

IRAN IS IMPERIALIST TOO&#33; They propagate their own imperialism in the Middle East and they are a FASCIST, REACTIONARY REGIME THAT BRUTALLY OPPRESSES THE MASSES OF PEOPLE&#33;

No it isn&#39;t comrade I don&#39;t think you fully understand imperialism if you think Iran is imperialist. Iran is an oppressed nation, it isn&#39;t fascist, Yes Iran has a reactionary line on homosexuality and women, but it is a nation which has kicked out the US from its oil fields and is fighting back against imperialism it also has a progressive role in the liberation of palestine supporting liberation groups.
LOL&#33;

EDIT: it&#39;s impossible to reply seriously to this, I&#39;m sorry

[jaffe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 02:33 am
Yes Iran has a reactionary line on homosexuality
Yes they hang them....
how can you support such countries?

[Great Helmsman]

Originally posted by An archist+November 24, 2007 02:13 pm--> (An archist @ November 24, 2007 02:13 pm)
[email protected] 19, 2007 02:33 am

IRAN IS IMPERIALIST TOO&#33; They propagate their own imperialism in the Middle East and they are a FASCIST, REACTIONARY REGIME THAT BRUTALLY OPPRESSES THE MASSES OF PEOPLE&#33;

No it isn&#39;t comrade I don&#39;t think you fully understand imperialism if you think Iran is imperialist. Iran is an oppressed nation, it isn&#39;t fascist, Yes Iran has a reactionary line on homosexuality and women, but it is a nation which has kicked out the US from its oil fields and is fighting back against imperialism it also has a progressive role in the liberation of palestine supporting liberation groups.
LOL&#33;

EDIT: it&#39;s impossible to reply seriously to this, I&#39;m sorry [/b]
Right, you can&#39;t respond seriously to it because there&#39;s no serious argument against it. Take a hike ultra left opportunists.

[Great Helmsman]

Originally posted by jaffe+November 24, 2007 05:06 pm--> (jaffe @ November 24, 2007 05:06 pm)
[email protected] 19, 2007 02:33 am
Yes Iran has a reactionary line on homosexuality
Yes they hang them....
how can you support such countries? [/b]
Very easily actually. Choose which is worse: bombing and sanctions that could kill hundreds of thousands of Iranians, or a person hanged for sodomy. To say that supporting Iran and supporting America are morally equivalent is the worst sort of passivity.

And some Comrades need to learn what imperialism actually is before shooting their mouthes off.

[Dros]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 02:33 am

IRAN IS IMPERIALIST TOO&#33; They propagate their own imperialism in the Middle East and they are a FASCIST, REACTIONARY REGIME THAT BRUTALLY OPPRESSES THE MASSES OF PEOPLE&#33;

No it isn&#39;t comrade I don&#39;t think you fully understand imperialism if you think Iran is imperialist. Iran is an oppressed nation, it isn&#39;t fascist, Yes Iran has a reactionary line on homosexuality and women, but it is a nation which has kicked out the US from its oil fields and is fighting back against imperialism it also has a progressive role in the liberation of palestine supporting liberation groups.
No. I&#39;m pretty sure I understand imperialism. Allow me to explain my position. Iran militantly advocates its own interests in other parts of the world by exploiting other nations. It is still exploited. I get it. You are setting up an oversimplistic dichotomy between "imperialist countries" and "exploited countries." There are countries that are exploited by the US but also perpetrate their own imperialism on other, even weaker countries. And, while Iran has driven the U.S. out, my poin is that criticizing their fascist behavior and perposterous political advocacy regarding women, gays, Islam, and almost everything else is not bad. In fact, we need to criticize this kind of nationalist movement. While it temporarily disrupts imperialism, it has not helped us to emancipate the workers.

[Dros]

Originally posted by PigmerikanMao+November 16, 2007 01:26 am--> (PigmerikanMao @ November 16, 2007 01:26 am)
[email protected] 15, 2007 10:20 pm
Indeed, this kind of line is inherently counter-revolutionary.
Perhaps you should be more specific in your posts next time, comrade. [/b]
Actively supporting a fascist government just because it has opposed imperialism harms the working class movement because it does not get us anywhere near communism.

Your argument rests on this notion that we either support American imperialism or Iranian fascism.

I support neither. I recognize that American imperialism and Iranian fascism are terrible. I beleive the best thing for the world and for Iran is to advocate a communist revolution.


QUOTE (jaffe @ November 24, 2007 05:06 pm)
QUOTE (LeftyHenryML @ November 19, 2007 02:33 am)
Yes Iran has a reactionary line on homosexuality

Yes they hang them....
how can you support such countries?

Very easily actually. Choose which is worse: bombing and sanctions that could kill hundreds of thousands of Iranians, or a person hanged for sodomy. To say that supporting Iran and supporting America are morally equivalent is the worst sort of passivity.

And some Comrades need to learn what imperialism actually is before shooting their mouthes off.

See above. Neither Washington nor Tehran. The choice is not between U.S. imperialism and Iran fascism. It is a choice between all the old reactionary shit and communist revolution. I think that should be a pretty easy choice.

[Dros]

Originally posted by Electronic [email protected] 25, 2007 02:56 am
Right, you can&#39;t respond seriously to it because there&#39;s no serious argument against it. Take a hike ultra left opportunists.
Just out of curiosity, is that directed at me?

And if so, in what possible way could my position be classified as opportunist?

[Great Helmsman]

Originally posted by drosera99+November 25, 2007 05:13 am--> (drosera99 @ November 25, 2007 05:13 am)
Electronic [email protected] 25, 2007 02:56 am
Right, you can&#39;t respond seriously to it because there&#39;s no serious argument against it. Take a hike ultra left opportunists.
Just out of curiosity, is that directed at me?

And if so, in what possible way could my position be classified as opportunist? [/b]
Not just you. Criticizing the Iranian regime is quite possibly a dangerous thing in these times, and is not helpful in opposing imperialism.

[black magick hustla]

Why are MIMites so into "anti-imperialism", even more than for world communist revolution?

What happened with the slogan that "workers have no country"?

[Comrade Rage]

I agree, not because I like the IRI regime, but because they are imperialism&#39;s next (intended) victim.

[Dros]

Originally posted by Electronic [email protected] 25, 2007 05:22 am
Criticizing the Iranian regime is quite possibly a dangerous thing in these times, and is not helpful in opposing imperialism.
1.) In what way is it "dangerous"?
2.)Not criticizing the Iranian regime is even more dangerous because it doesn&#39;t help us emancipate the masses.
3.) How does this in any way make me an opportunist (or for that matter an ultra-leftist)?

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 25, 2007 05:24 am
I agree, not because I like the IRI regime, but because they are imperialism&#39;s next (intended) victim.
The victim of "imperialism" is not the iranian state, but the iranian people themselves.

[Comrade Rage]

Originally posted by Marmot+November 25, 2007 12:29 am--> (Marmot @ November 25, 2007 12:29 am)
COMRADE [email protected] 25, 2007 05:24 am
I agree, not because I like the IRI regime, but because they are imperialism&#39;s next (intended) victim.
The victim of "imperialism" is not the iranian state, but the iranian people themselves. [/b]
You&#39;re correct, I mispoke.

[Dros]

Originally posted by Marmot+November 25, 2007 05:29 am--> (Marmot @ November 25, 2007 05:29 am)
COMRADE [email protected] 25, 2007 05:24 am
I agree, not because I like the IRI regime, but because they are imperialism&#39;s next (intended) victim.
The victim of "imperialism" is not the iranian state, but the iranian people themselves. [/b]
Agree.

Also, the Iranian people are victims of the Iranian state&#33;

I don&#39;t understand how a communist can support such a blatantly reactionary regime. Instead, we should support the Communist Party of Iran(Marxist-Leninist-Maoist) in waging a people&#39;s war.

[Comrade Rage]

Originally posted by drosera99+November 25, 2007 12:37 am--> (drosera99 @ November 25, 2007 12:37 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 05:29 am

COMRADE [email protected] 25, 2007 05:24 am
I agree, not because I like the IRI regime, but because they are imperialism&#39;s next (intended) victim.
The victim of "imperialism" is not the iranian state, but the iranian people themselves.
Agree.

Also, the Iranian people are victims of the Iranian state&#33;

I don&#39;t understand how a communist can support such a blatantly reactionary regime. Instead, we should support the Communist Party of Iran(Marxist-Leninist-Maoist) in waging a people&#39;s war. [/b]
I mispoke. I hate the regime itself, I just don&#39;t want to see an imperialist intervention.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Electronic Light+November 25, 2007 03:05 am--> (Electronic Light @ November 25, 2007 03:05 am) To say that supporting Iran and supporting America are morally equivalent is the worst sort of passivity.
[/b]
I don&#39;t think that it is anything to do with moral equivalence. It is to do with the fact that the Iranian working class is trying to mobilise the working class in defence of national capital.

Supporting the weaker power ends up with you supporting the bourgeoisie of that country.

This first step is this:

Electronic Light
We have no choice but to support the Khomeini regime...it would be wrong to strike... socialist should not call for the disruption of military supplies... not support action which would lead to the collapse of the military effort.

...And the final step is cheering on the regime when it shoots down workers in the street.

Devrim

[Great Helmsman]

1.) In what way is it "dangerous"?
2.)Not criticizing the Iranian regime is even more dangerous because it doesn&#39;t help us emancipate the masses.
3.) How does this in any way make me an opportunist (or for that matter an ultra-leftist)?
1)Neoconservatives are always on the look out for new ways to sell war with a progressive slant. Now that doesn&#39;t mean that every time someone says something negative about Iran, they endanger the workers. But some Iranian bloggers have now become wary about posting their criticisms of the regime in English for this reason.
2)Just because something doesn&#39;t immediately bring about communism doesn&#39;t mean it&#39;s not something that should be supported.
3)The left is once again going to make itself irrelevant if it doesn&#39;t stop splitting over the issue of Iran. Iran is not a socialist paradise, but pretending to take a neutral stance on Iran is a terrible way to oppose the main enemy.



I don&#39;t understand how a communist can support such a blatantly reactionary regime. Instead, we should support the Communist Party of Iran(Marxist-Leninist-Maoist) in waging a people&#39;s war.
A people&#39;s war involves a united front against imperialism. I would be shocked if Iranian Maoists didn&#39;t see America as the main enemy to combat.



I don&#39;t think that it is anything to do with moral equivalence. It is to do with the fact that the Iranian working class is trying to mobilise the working class in defence of national capital.

Supporting the weaker power ends up with you supporting the bourgeoisie of that country.

I think you meant ruling class. There&#39;s a difference between third world national capitalism and first world imperialism. Economic nationalism in the third world is not an ideal thing, but it is progressive as it serves to weaken imperialist power. If supporting the national bourgeoisie strengthens workers short-term interests, then that would preferable to supporting the international imperialists by taking a neutral stance.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Electronic Light+November 25, 2007 06:58 am--> (Electronic Light @ November 25, 2007 06:58 am) I think you meant ruling class. [/b]
I meant bourgeoisie. Which class do you think is the ruling class in Iran?


Originally posted by Electronic [email protected]
If supporting the national bourgeoisie strengthens workers short-term interests, then that would preferable to supporting the international imperialists by taking a neutral stance.

Dying for their bosses is not in workers short term interests.

We are not neutral. We support the working class.


Electronic Light
A people&#39;s war involves a united front against imperialism. I would be shocked if Iranian Maoists didn&#39;t see America as the main enemy to combat.

I would be surprised if the Maoists didn&#39;t play their traditional role, and act as recruit sergants on behalf of national capital too.

Devrim

[Dros]

Originally posted by Electronic [email protected] 25, 2007 06:58 am


1.) In what way is it "dangerous"?
2.)Not criticizing the Iranian regime is even more dangerous because it doesn&#39;t help us emancipate the masses.
3.) How does this in any way make me an opportunist (or for that matter an ultra-leftist)?
1)Neoconservatives are always on the look out for new ways to sell war with a progressive slant. Now that doesn&#39;t mean that every time someone says something negative about Iran, they endanger the workers. But some Iranian bloggers have now become wary about posting their criticisms of the regime in English for this reason.
2)Just because something doesn&#39;t immediately bring about communism doesn&#39;t mean it&#39;s not something that should be supported.
3)The left is once again going to make itself irrelevant if it doesn&#39;t stop splitting over the issue of Iran. Iran is not a socialist paradise, but pretending to take a neutral stance on Iran is a terrible way to oppose the main enemy.
1.) Right. So we oppose those efforts. That doesn&#39;t mean endorsing fascism.
2.) That&#39;s true. My point was that supporting the Iranian fascist regime against a communist revolution that is currently being started actively hinders communism&#39;s progress.
3.) How does that make me an opportunist? And why does that make your position correct?

[RNK]

Very easily actually. Choose which is worse: bombing and sanctions that could kill hundreds of thousands of Iranians, or a person hanged for sodomy.

The fact of the matter is, we shouldn&#39;t be forced into a situation where we have to choose the lesser of two evils -- and that is what this really is, at its base: two evils. You&#39;re attempting to justify a reactionary position by the reactionary implications of its polar opposite.

It&#39;s about time you stopped telling yourself you have to take sides. You can be against an imperialist invasion of Iran without becoming a mouthpiece for islamic fundamentalism, you know; just like you can criticize an ultra-conservative religious regime without becoming a pro-imperial oppurtunist.


To say that supporting Iran and supporting America are morally equivalent is the worst sort of passivity.

How? And why? Is the Iranian regime more socially or economically progressive than the United States? Does the Iranian regime do more to protect its workers? Does it support and uphold any socialist values whatsoever? Infact, what is the point of demonizing one over the other -- you&#39;re faced with brutal anti-socialist dictatorship and brutal anti-socialist imperialism, and attempting to sort out which deserves support and which doesn&#39;t is nothing but petty bullshit.


And some Comrades need to learn what imperialism actually is before shooting their mouthes off.

Mao didn&#39;t invent the definition of imperialism, son.




I would be surprised if the Maoists didn&#39;t play their traditional role, and act as recruit sergants on behalf of national capital too.

What we need is some ultra-lefties to come and criticize everything and anything and provide absolutely no tangible alternative to anything whatsover.

Anyway, people who feel the overwhelming urge to support reactionary ultra-religious totalitarians are petty, simple-minded buffoons who understand absolutely nothing about class struggle and instead cling onto some retarded, romantic notion of anti-authoritarianism. Your kind would be much more comfortable if you all became libertarians and started going off about how every politician in the world in the past 100 years has been an ultra-Marxist attempting to enslave humanity under a Rothschild/Extraterrestrial Alliance. The second you stand next to the kind of men who rule Iran, and pick up arms with them to defend them against what you see as their only enemy, is the second you&#39;ve picked up arms against the very workers in Iran who suffer under some of the most brutal anti-worker oppression in the world. You may think you are helping them defend themselves against imperialism; in the end, whether or not you actually are fighting American imperialism, you are also helping to suppress those workers, and execute those homosexuals, and arrest and torture those students, and help the Iranian regime in every act of violent repression against the working class.

And the most ironic part is, while you&#39;re sitting there in your comfortable 1st world home, reaping the benefits of your "parasitic" devouring of the 3rd world, you&#39;ve absolutely failed to link yourself with the actual working-class resistance fighting the class struggle in Iran, who are being killed by the Iranian military. Congratulations; you&#39;ve not only turned your back on the workers in Iran, you&#39;ve also turned your back on the comrades actually fighting for socialism there.

[Dros]

Couldn&#39;t agree more. :D

[Devrim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 08:46 am
I would be surprised if the Maoists didn&#39;t play their traditional role, and act as recruit sergants on behalf of national capital too.

What we need is some ultra-lefties to come and criticize everything and anything and provide absolutely no tangible alternative to anything whatsover.

Anyway, people who feel the overwhelming urge to support reactionary ultra-religious totalitarians are petty, simple-minded buffoons who understand absolutely nothing about class struggle and instead cling onto some retarded, romantic notion of anti-authoritarianism. Your kind would be much more comfortable if you all became libertarians and started going off about how every politician in the world in the past 100 years has been an ultra-Marxist attempting to enslave humanity under a Rothschild/Extraterrestrial Alliance. The second you stand next to the kind of men who rule Iran, and pick up arms with them to defend them against what you see as their only enemy, is the second you&#39;ve picked up arms against the very workers in Iran who suffer under some of the most brutal anti-worker oppression in the world. You may think you are helping them defend themselves against imperialism; in the end, whether or not you actually are fighting American imperialism, you are also helping to suppress those workers, and execute those homosexuals, and arrest and torture those students, and help the Iranian regime in every act of violent repression against the working class.
[/quote]
I am not sure what this is about really. I think that RNK must have lost his train of thought, and just put his snipe at the communist left in the middle of his argument against the Maoists. It doesn&#39;t say much though.

On the point of this diatribe against the Maoists RKN, you seem to be arguing positions similar to those of the communist left. How long will you keep this position up? I would bet that as soon as the bombs begin to fall, you will start to support the Iranian state.

Devrim

[YSR]

Originally posted by Great [email protected] 24, 2007 11:22 pm
Not just you. Criticizing the Iranian regime is quite possibly a dangerous thing in these times, and is not helpful in opposing imperialism.
MUST NOT QUESTION.

You know, telling people that they shouldn&#39;t criticize is like begging for people to criticize.

Your position is untenable and about as last-century as your ideology. Understand some Marxists who have their shit together. I suggest Hardt and Negri&#39;s "Empire". Your version of "anti-imperialism," as you call your anti-working class perspective, is useless. The Westphalian-Keynsian age is over.

Capitalism is everywhere. Those of us who organize against capitalism in the first world are fighting the same battle as the Iranian workers who are organizing against capitalism in their country and who have to contend with the reactionary forces of the state. Women who are oppressed in Iran are fighting the same battle as the battle for women&#39;s liberation in the first world. Queer folk who are trying not to get hanged in Iran are trying to get rights in the United States.

Just because your position is sexy and orientalist doesn&#39;t make it right.

[RNK]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 03:33 pm

I would be surprised if the Maoists didn&#39;t play their traditional role, and act as recruit sergants on behalf of national capital too.

What we need is some ultra-lefties to come and criticize everything and anything and provide absolutely no tangible alternative to anything whatsover.

Anyway, people who feel the overwhelming urge to support reactionary ultra-religious totalitarians are petty, simple-minded buffoons who understand absolutely nothing about class struggle and instead cling onto some retarded, romantic notion of anti-authoritarianism. Your kind would be much more comfortable if you all became libertarians and started going off about how every politician in the world in the past 100 years has been an ultra-Marxist attempting to enslave humanity under a Rothschild/Extraterrestrial Alliance. The second you stand next to the kind of men who rule Iran, and pick up arms with them to defend them against what you see as their only enemy, is the second you&#39;ve picked up arms against the very workers in Iran who suffer under some of the most brutal anti-worker oppression in the world. You may think you are helping them defend themselves against imperialism; in the end, whether or not you actually are fighting American imperialism, you are also helping to suppress those workers, and execute those homosexuals, and arrest and torture those students, and help the Iranian regime in every act of violent repression against the working class.

I am not sure what this is about really. I think that RNK must have lost his train of thought, and just put his snipe at the communist left in the middle of his argument against the Maoists. It doesn&#39;t say much though. [/quote]
Damn&#33; I&#39;ve been caught red-handed. To think, I "sniped" at the far-left.. I mean, nevermind the fact that you were the initial instigator, coming in here with your dribble about "Maoists". I&#39;m obviously the lesser man for reciprocating your childishness.


On the point of this diatribe against the Maoists RKN, you seem to be arguing positions similar to those of the communist left. How long will you keep this position up? I would bet that as soon as the bombs begin to fall, you will start to support the Iranian state.


"The Maoists", hah&#33; Arguing the position against capitalist and religious reactionism is not some sacred path of enlightenment exclusive to the far left, so please do not try to draw some retarded conclusion to that effect. The fact of the matter is (and most Maoists would agree -- hell, most anyone would) that embracing the extreme opposite of something wrong is not necessarily the most direct path to correctness. The "Maoists" who find themselves supporting fundamentalist Islam and totalitarian governments opposed to the US (and I should point out, this fallacy is not exclusive to Maoists either) are just confused and acting out of ignorance.

But anyway, it&#39;s funny you&#39;re essentially trying to tell me that I don&#39;t actually believe this. Afterall, someone who critices infantilism in the far-left can&#39;t hold correct views on international class struggle, right? Jeez, I should just drop the act and start planning for those gulags that all Westerners will be thrown in once the third world rises up...