Alex Jones at it again: Bashing Lenin !

[marxist_god]

Hello folks: The US left is sleeping, it is real weak and taken over by the far-right conspiracy theorist free market libertarian wave and movement going on in USA for sometime. I believe in *some* of the things conspiracy theorists claim like 9-11, zionism, fascism, police-fascism, false-flags, covert-ops, black ops, microchips, US cops using cameras on people, etc. all are real true and dangerous indeed.

However where i divorce myself from the far-right conspiracy theorists is in their alternative economic system which they propose, which is far-right white nationalism, free market libertarianism (a mix bag of whitism, nationalism and capitalism)

I believe socialism and communsim are the medicine to global-fascism, not free market white-nationalist libertarianism. Alex Jones and his far-right nationalist movement are at it again, this time bashing Lenin and socialism ideology. Lenin was the negation of fascism. I don't understand why Alex Jones bashes Lenin? hahaha, and then some guy calling his show http://www.infowars.com/listen is saying that revolutionaries of french revolution, and other revolutions were financed by global-illuminati bankers.

Alex Jones (A free market right winger) is claiming that Lenin used to love to inflict pain on animals, haha where did Alex Jones get that info. from? not from http://www.marxists.org which is the official Lenin source, but i think he got it from http://www.rense.com which makes some sense in some things but outrageous claims about socialism and leftists in general

marxist_god

[Faux Real]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 02:20 pm
I believe in *some* of the things conspiracy theorists claim like zionism, fascism, police-fascism, covert-ops, black ops, US cops using cameras on people
You don't need to be a conspiracy theorist or listen to them when it comes to these things.

Do yourself a favor and stop paying attention to Alex Jones. Nobody here acknowledges, supports, or cares about what he says. He has minuscule influence to a fringe group of lunatics in the politics of everyday life of the USA.

We don't need to hear about every single little piece of garbage he gets wrong on a daily basis.

There are plenty other people who misunderstand Lenin, communism, and anarchism in general. Why we would give them a platform and serve nothing but the advancement of their own propaganda when they're incorrect is beyond me.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 10:20 pm
Alex Jones (A free market right winger) is claiming that Lenin used to love to inflict pain on animals, haha where did Alex Jones get that info. from?
From the same source that told him the US government imploded the WTC or that Kennedy was murdered by the CIA.

You can't understand it if you don't accept the mystical properties of tinfoil.

Luís Henrique

[marxist_god]

Originally posted by rev0lt+December 21, 2007 10:32 pm--> (rev0lt @ December 21, 2007 10:32 pm)
[email protected] 21, 2007 02:20 pm
I believe in *some* of the things conspiracy theorists claim like zionism, fascism, police-fascism, covert-ops, black ops, US cops using cameras on people
You don't need to be a conspiracy theorist or listen to them when it comes to these things.

Do yourself a favor and stop paying attention to Alex Jones. Nobody here acknowledges, supports, or cares about what he says. He has minuscule influence to a fringe group of lunatics in the politics of everyday life of the USA.

We don't need to hear about every single little piece of garbage he gets wrong on a daily basis.

There are plenty other people who misunderstand Lenin, communism, and anarchism in general. Why we would give them a platform and serve nothing but the advancement of their own propaganda when they're incorrect is beyond me. [/b]


You are missing 2 points of the things i said:

# 1 point: That according to statistics, Alex Jones and the far-right conspiracy theorists are stronger in political support and polls, than the US left. (In other words: conspiracy theorists are winning in numbers, because Ron Paul, has more people backing him supporting him than the whole US left combined, so we should we worried of why the US left is weaker than the right-wing free market libertarian conspiracy theory movement as options and solution for US and world problems)

#2: Point: this goes to Luis Henrique: If i question 9-11, does it mean that i am a libertarian free market conspiracy theorist? you lack rational thinking, your dogmatism, slavery to a political party, to an ideology, cultism, sectarianism and revisionism doesn't let u think. So let's see, if Bush likes Pizzas and i eat pizzas it means that i am a neocon?? haha nice try my friend, haha

Nice try, but not exactly the reply i would've liked, i'm into great projects and great politics, not into cheap politics of the obsolete dumb leftists out there who still rely on stalinism, fascism and sectarianism of the XX century (the totally opposite of what Marx wrote)


marxist_god

[marxist_god]

Originally posted by Luís Henrique+December 21, 2007 11:21 pm--> (Luís Henrique @ December 21, 2007 11:21 pm)
[email protected] 21, 2007 10:20 pm
Alex Jones (A free market right winger) is claiming that Lenin used to love to inflict pain on animals, haha where did Alex Jones get that info. from?
From the same source that told him the US government imploded the WTC or that Kennedy was murdered by the CIA.

You can't understand it if you don't accept the mystical properties of tinfoil.

Luís Henrique [/b]


By the way, you are using words the way neocons use them to try to twist and divert its meanings of them. You are labeling me as a "mystic", just like Dubya who labels people who question him as terrorists. Nice try but not right my friend. There is nothing mystical about questioning the US government's lies

Think for yourself, question the authorities, instead of labeling me as "mystical". The only mystical i know is Nancy Reagan who was into horoscope. In fact questioning 9-11 is *scientific*, not "mystical". A mystical person is like a metaphysical, religious person who bases his arguments on *beliefs*, on a set of un-evidenced beliefs, provided by authority, religion and traditional morality. If you are gonna label people crazy, mystical, esoterics, label those who bought the US government 9-11 Comission, not the rational people who question it.

marxist_god

[SouthernBelle82]

Originally posted by rev0lt+December 21, 2007 10:32 pm--> (rev0lt @ December 21, 2007 10:32 pm)
[email protected] 21, 2007 02:20 pm
I believe in *some* of the things conspiracy theorists claim like zionism, fascism, police-fascism, covert-ops, black ops, US cops using cameras on people
You don't need to be a conspiracy theorist or listen to them when it comes to these things.

Do yourself a favor and stop paying attention to Alex Jones. Nobody here acknowledges, supports, or cares about what he says. He has minuscule influence to a fringe group of lunatics in the politics of everyday life of the USA.

We don't need to hear about every single little piece of garbage he gets wrong on a daily basis.

There are plenty other people who misunderstand Lenin, communism, and anarchism in general. Why we would give them a platform and serve nothing but the advancement of their own propaganda when they're incorrect is beyond me. [/b]
I agree as well. If it's something that is obviously going to be a big deal than we should know and try to counter it but if it's just his normal stuff than I wouldn't bother with it. If you were to ask the average person who Alex Jones is they probably wouldn't have a clue or care much.

[SouthernBelle82]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 04:38 am
[QUOTE=rev0lt,December 21, 2007 10:32 pm]

You are missing 2 points of the things i said:

# 1 point: That according to statistics, Alex Jones and the far-right conspiracy theorists are stronger in political support and polls, than the US left. (In other words: conspiracy theorists are winning in numbers, because Ron Paul, has more people backing him supporting him than the whole US left combined, so we should we worried of why the US left is weaker than the right-wing free market libertarian conspiracy theory movement as options and solution for US and world problems)

#2: Point: this goes to Luis Henrique: If i question 9-11, does it mean that i am a libertarian free market conspiracy theorist? you lack rational thinking, your dogmatism, slavery to a political party, to an ideology, cultism, sectarianism and revisionism doesn't let u think. So let's see, if Bush likes Pizzas and i eat pizzas it means that i am a neocon?? haha nice try my friend, haha

Nice try, but not exactly the reply i would've liked, i'm into great projects and great politics, not into cheap politics of the obsolete dumb leftists out there who still rely on stalinism, fascism and sectarianism of the XX century (the totally opposite of what Marx wrote)


marxist_god
1) Where is Ron Paul in the national polls again? Money and spamming the town with your signs doesn't mean you're popular. Also look at how many people show up at his events compared to Obama when he had his event with Oprah. They had like 30,000 something people. Even Hillary has more support in the polls.

2) I question 9/11 too but I also don't indulge in things I can't prove. I generally try to stay within documents and things like that.

I just think you're putting more hype into Jones and the libertarian people.

[Moonwalk Mafia]

1) On my campus there is a lot of Ron Paul support; more than any other candidate actually (I'm in PA). He broke the record for receiving donations for his campaign in one day. Apparently mostly small donations ($50). The media doesn't like him so they aren't going to include him in their polls. I think we can all agree the media is pretty much a corporate-capitalist-friendly entity in America, even if it means attacking ultra "pro-petit-bougious candidates" such as Ron Paul.

For the record, I hate libertarianism, and Ron Paul for that matter. But he has a lot more support than what is put forth in the TV polls. Unfortunately, my generation has chosen libertarianism to be the "cool, new, radical" political ideology to part in so that they can be hip (there's so many times I could puke in the last month alone just by talking to people).

Overall, the American Federal government is an enemy of the people, as I've seen it so far in our modern times. Just as much as the corporations. Who's going to succeed and revoke at least one of these evils, and if they revoke one of the evils, which one is the most devious (corporations > federal government?) That's what should be discussed here.

2) I believe that 9/11 has A LOT of questions unanswered behind it, and I wouldn't put it past our disguisting imperalist system to pull another Pearl Harbor (on a different scale) to propagate a never-ending conflict to gain as much natural resources from other countries as possible. 9/11 was too convenient for our upper class, in my opinion. And yes, I've been questioning this for years now.

EDIT: Sorry, but I must include my own answer to the rhetorical questions so that people don't become overwhelmingly pissed. I think the American Federal government has pretty much become intertwined with our corporations so that there will always be a safe environment for the Fortune 500. Basically I think at this point our goverment is at or closely approaching a Federal Gov = Corporate State, which of course would be as close to Fascism as America has ever come. Anyway, Ron Paul is NOT the way to go, but what candidate out there that has legimate support that is closest to a socialist libertarian? Kucinich (not a socialist, but the closest candidate there is) will not win, and Nader will surely run after that and not win (even though he'll have my "vote"). I'm so distraught and confused about the whole damn voting system...

[RebelDog]

"Alex Jones at it again: Bashing Lenin"

The global proletariat must be up in arms about this, or maybe they don't give a flying fuck.

[Tatarin]

What does it matter what Alex Jones says? It is pretty obvious that he is lost in his thoughts as it is. And after you've seen...

...this video (http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=Orj55fo1u9I)...

...you won't want to listen to him anymore.

[Zurdito]

# 1 point: That according to statistics, Alex Jones and the far-right conspiracy theorists are stronger in political support and polls, than the US left.

I'm pretty sure that every single mainstream politician in the US, including those with much more power and support than Ron Paul, is anti-marxist. Do we need to know every time one of them or one of their supporters bashes marxism?

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 04:38 am
#2: Point: this goes to Luis Henrique: If i question 9-11, does it mean that i am a libertarian free market conspiracy theorist?
No.

But you are conflating some different things here.

What means to "question 9/11"? It happened, do you question this? It happened on September 11; am I close-minded if I refuse to take into account the possibility that it didn't happen at all, or that it happened on the tenth, or twelfth, of September? It was done by flying two jets against the WTC buildings, and a third jet against the Pentagon. Am I under any obligation to consider the idea that the buildings were imploded? The planes were flown into the buildings by replacing their pilots by other people, who knew how to fly jets. Must I take into account the idea that the planes were remote-controlled?

See, there are many different ways to "question 9/11": some of them are mutually exclusive (you can't claim it didn't happen AND that it was made by the Jews). Which "questioning of 9/11" are you making, and why that particular "questioning" is more important than any other? Or do you subscribe to the eclectic idea that "something" was wrong there, and it doesn't matter what that "something" was?


you lack rational thinking, your dogmatism, slavery to a political party, to an ideology, cultism, sectarianism and revisionism doesn't let u think.

Tone down. My thinking is rational enough, I am not dogmatic, I am not a slave to a political party or an ideology, I am not a cultist, a sectarian or a revisionist. What basis do you have to make such accusations?


So let's see, if Bush likes Pizzas and i eat pizzas it means that i am a neocon?? haha nice try my friend, haha

Where have I said, or implied, something that ridiculous?


Nice try, but not exactly the reply i would've liked, i'm into great projects and great politics,

I doubt it very much, but I won't ask you what great projects are those, since they are probably secret, hm?


not into cheap politics of the obsolete dumb leftists out there who still rely on stalinism, fascism and sectarianism of the XX century (the totally opposite of what Marx wrote)

Where do I, or any other person responding to you, rely on stalinism or sectarianism, much less on fascism?

Luís Henrique

[Tatarin]

Luís Henrique, spare yourself. I've already gone in-depth with the "questioning of 9/11" on this thread (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=73985) with him.

But I guess we are better of as Avakian's/Murdoch's/CNN's/US government's slaves...

[SouthernBelle82]

Originally posted by Moonwalk [email protected] 22, 2007 07:01 am
1) On my campus there is a lot of Ron Paul support; more than any other candidate actually (I'm in PA). He broke the record for receiving donations for his campaign in one day. Apparently mostly small donations ($50). The media doesn't like him so they aren't going to include him in their polls. I think we can all agree the media is pretty much a corporate-capitalist-friendly entity in America, even if it means attacking ultra "pro-petit-bougious candidates" such as Ron Paul.

For the record, I hate libertarianism, and Ron Paul for that matter. But he has a lot more support than what is put forth in the TV polls. Unfortunately, my generation has chosen libertarianism to be the "cool, new, radical" political ideology to part in so that they can be hip (there's so many times I could puke in the last month alone just by talking to people).

Overall, the American Federal government is an enemy of the people, as I've seen it so far in our modern times. Just as much as the corporations. Who's going to succeed and revoke at least one of these evils, and if they revoke one of the evils, which one is the most devious (corporations > federal government?) That's what should be discussed here.

2) I believe that 9/11 has A LOT of questions unanswered behind it, and I wouldn't put it past our disguisting imperalist system to pull another Pearl Harbor (on a different scale) to propagate a never-ending conflict to gain as much natural resources from other countries as possible. 9/11 was too convenient for our upper class, in my opinion. And yes, I've been questioning this for years now.

EDIT: Sorry, but I must include my own answer to the rhetorical questions so that people don't become overwhelmingly pissed. I think the American Federal government has pretty much become intertwined with our corporations so that there will always be a safe environment for the Fortune 500. Basically I think at this point our goverment is at or closely approaching a Federal Gov = Corporate State, which of course would be as close to Fascism as America has ever come. Anyway, Ron Paul is NOT the way to go, but what candidate out there that has legimate support that is closest to a socialist libertarian? Kucinich (not a socialist, but the closest candidate there is) will not win, and Nader will surely run after that and not win (even though he'll have my "vote"). I'm so distraught and confused about the whole damn voting system...
1) Your college campus doesn't include the whole nation does it? Nope. I'm in college and in my world politics class last term there were at most two Ron Paul supporters there. And I'm a Richardson supporter. And money does not equal votes. Does anyone remember Howard Dean of 2003? He had money and signs everywhere and was all over the media but he came in THIRD in Iowa. He didn't even win here in TN but Kerry did and Kerry is way more liberal than Dean is (Dean is a conservative/moderate). Ron Paul has been in every media poll I've seen because the spammers go full force. And I don't put much in online polls anyways because every candidate has people who spam the poll to get that person's name out there. Sorry but just because Ron Paul has a lot of spammers doesn't mean he has a lot of support. Hell even Bill Richardson is having more support than he does.

I believe in not voting if I was so confused. May I suggest Bill Richardson. There are like one or two issues I disagree with him on but he's a great candidate over all. I like him better than the top three that's for sure. If he keeps rising in the polls by the time my state gets to vote in the primaries I'll probably vote for him if not then I'll go to someone else I agree with mostly who needs my vote.

[bootleg42]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 09:09 pm
And I'm a Richardson supporter. And money does not equal votes.
What?!?!?!??!?!!!?!?!???

I'm not going to say anything but expect some negatives responses from people here.

[marxist_god]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 04:49 pm
But I guess we are better of as Avakian's/Murdoch's/CNN's/US government's slaves...


You forgot to mention The Nation elitist magazine, Alternet which is a pro Al Gore site, Common Dreams, Alexander Cockburn, zmag, Bob Avakian and Noam Chomsky, all those elitist light reformist leftists, are all pro US government official 9-11 story, all of them claim that 9-11 was done by "islamic terrorists" linked to Saddam Hussein, and Islamic Terrorist governments, no wonder they were and are pro-war.

hmmm, we have to be skeptic about the so called "leftists" out there

marxist_god

[marxist_god]

Originally posted by Moonwalk [email protected] 22, 2007 07:01 am
1) On my campus there is a lot of Ron Paul support; more than any other candidate actually (I'm in PA). He broke the record for receiving donations for his campaign in one day. Apparently mostly small donations ($50). The media doesn't like him so they aren't going to include him in their polls. I think we can all agree the media is pretty much a corporate-capitalist-friendly entity in America, even if it means attacking ultra "pro-petit-bougious candidates" such as Ron Paul.

For the record, I hate libertarianism, and Ron Paul for that matter. But he has a lot more support than what is put forth in the TV polls. Unfortunately, my generation has chosen libertarianism to be the "cool, new, radical" political ideology to part in so that they can be hip (there's so many times I could puke in the last month alone just by talking to people).

Overall, the American Federal government is an enemy of the people, as I've seen it so far in our modern times. Just as much as the corporations. Who's going to succeed and revoke at least one of these evils, and if they revoke one of the evils, which one is the most devious (corporations > federal government?) That's what should be discussed here.

2) I believe that 9/11 has A LOT of questions unanswered behind it, and I wouldn't put it past our disguisting imperalist system to pull another Pearl Harbor (on a different scale) to propagate a never-ending conflict to gain as much natural resources from other countries as possible. 9/11 was too convenient for our upper class, in my opinion. And yes, I've been questioning this for years now.

EDIT: Sorry, but I must include my own answer to the rhetorical questions so that people don't become overwhelmingly pissed. I think the American Federal government has pretty much become intertwined with our corporations so that there will always be a safe environment for the Fortune 500. Basically I think at this point our goverment is at or closely approaching a Federal Gov = Corporate State, which of course would be as close to Fascism as America has ever come. Anyway, Ron Paul is NOT the way to go, but what candidate out there that has legimate support that is closest to a socialist libertarian? Kucinich (not a socialist, but the closest candidate there is) will not win, and Nader will surely run after that and not win (even though he'll have my "vote"). I'm so distraught and confused about the whole damn voting system...


I am a realist, an observer of reality, not a utopian crazy passionate person who denies reality and tries to escape from its truths.

The truth is that Ron Paul and the right-wing free market libertarian sector of USA have more support than the US left, I don't understand why really. Which and what are the causes for so many americans to hate leftism ideology, and to welcome, free-market-libertarianism ideology. I really cannot explain it, since i am not an american historian like Howard Zin, etc.

From my own point of view i think that USA has suffered about 100 years of Anti-Leftism Media propaganda, and this is why the hatred toward socialist ideology

marxist_god

[Dros]

#2: Point: this goes to Luis Henrique: If i question 9-11, does it mean that i am a libertarian free market conspiracy theorist? you lack rational thinking, your dogmatism, slavery to a political party, to an ideology, cultism, sectarianism and revisionism doesn't let u think. So let's see, if Bush likes Pizzas and i eat pizzas it means that i am a neocon?? haha nice try my friend, haha

Nice try, but not exactly the reply i would've liked, i'm into great projects and great politics, not into cheap politics of the obsolete dumb leftists out there who still rely on stalinism, fascism and sectarianism of the XX century (the totally opposite of what Marx wrote)

What was that about? I think you totally misread LH.


I'm a Richardson supporter.

I'm sorry. WHAT?!?!?!?!. Why are you here? This is a revolutionary leftists forum. Everyone here wants to violently overthrow the US government! When we say "left" we don't mean we're Democrats!

Go support criminals somewhere else.

Can someone restrict her?

[marxist_god]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 11:48 pm

#2: Point: this goes to Luis Henrique: If i question 9-11, does it mean that i am a libertarian free market conspiracy theorist? you lack rational thinking, your dogmatism, slavery to a political party, to an ideology, cultism, sectarianism and revisionism doesn't let u think. So let's see, if Bush likes Pizzas and i eat pizzas it means that i am a neocon?? haha nice try my friend, haha

Nice try, but not exactly the reply i would've liked, i'm into great projects and great politics, not into cheap politics of the obsolete dumb leftists out there who still rely on stalinism, fascism and sectarianism of the XX century (the totally opposite of what Marx wrote)

What was that about? I think you totally misread LH.


I'm a Richardson supporter.

I'm sorry. WHAT?!?!?!?!. Why are you here? This is a revolutionary leftists forum. Everyone here wants to violently overthrow the US government! When we say "left" we don't mean we're Democrats!

Go support criminals somewhere else.

Can someone restrict her?



Hello my Avakianist friend and "comrade":

a couple of things for you:

# 1: Don't tell me what to do, i let no man control my words and my destiny, specially those who stink like garlic, not even good old Bush.


#2: You are not a leftist, you are a stalinist and maoist, an Avakianist. Who gives you the authrotity to give me orders, you stalinist revisionist.


# 3: i trust anarchists a lot more than a lot of dogmatic, revisionist XX century leftists


# 4: chill out, take it easy, don't be so mean and aggressive against other leftists here


marxist_god

[marxist_god]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 11:48 pm
Everyone here wants to violently overthrow the US government!


hey by the way do you wanna overthrow US government by killing a lot of inocent civilians like ETA, Al Qaeda or any other terrorist organization out there? Coz i am a revolutionary marxist, not a killer. Read more about Marxism and Leninism please

marxist_god

[bootleg42]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 11:48 pm

I'm a Richardson supporter.

I'm sorry. WHAT?!?!?!?!. Why are you here? This is a revolutionary leftists forum. Everyone here wants to violently overthrow the US government! When we say "left" we don't mean we're Democrats!

Go support criminals somewhere else.

Can someone restrict her?
I think we should let her talk first....maybe she just doesn't know about revolutionary leftism very well. I say we should let her respond and explain.

Also I think it's better to word the goals of everyone here better in this simple sentence:

A classless, stateless society where the means of production are collectively owned.

[Zurdito]

Originally posted by bootleg42+December 23, 2007 12:23 am--> (bootleg42 @ December 23, 2007 12:23 am)
[email protected] 22, 2007 11:48 pm

I'm a Richardson supporter.

I'm sorry. WHAT?!?!?!?!. Why are you here? This is a revolutionary leftists forum. Everyone here wants to violently overthrow the US government! When we say "left" we don't mean we're Democrats!

Go support criminals somewhere else.

Can someone restrict her?
I think we should let her talk first....maybe she just doesn't know about revolutionary leftism very well. I say we should let her respond and explain.

Also I think it's better to word the goals of everyone here better in this simple sentence:

A classless, stateless society where the means of production are collectively owned. [/b]
I agree, surely left-democrats are just the kind of people we need to debate with. she took the time to come onto a marxist board, I say good for her, she is way more politically aware than most people.

[bootleg42]

Originally posted by Zurdito+December 23, 2007 12:41 am--> (Zurdito @ December 23, 2007 12:41 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 12:23 am

[email protected] 22, 2007 11:48 pm

I'm a Richardson supporter.

I'm sorry. WHAT?!?!?!?!. Why are you here? This is a revolutionary leftists forum. Everyone here wants to violently overthrow the US government! When we say "left" we don't mean we're Democrats!

Go support criminals somewhere else.

Can someone restrict her?
I think we should let her talk first....maybe she just doesn't know about revolutionary leftism very well. I say we should let her respond and explain.

Also I think it's better to word the goals of everyone here better in this simple sentence:

A classless, stateless society where the means of production are collectively owned.
I agree, surely left-democrats are just the kind of people we need to debate with. she took the time to come onto a marxist board, I say good for her, she is way more politically aware than most people. [/b]
Can a mod please PM her about this. And PLEASE don't scare her away. She may just not know what we're all about and maybe she likes what we talk about but she might not understand what we're ALL about.

I mean the fact that she's got a John Kerry pic and openly supports Bill Richardson can make us think she's just another liberal but she seems to like what we're all saying so someone please look into that. DON'T scare her away, teach her and give her chances. She's not a troll or an evil right-winger.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Originally posted by bootleg42+December 23, 2007 01:25 am--> (bootleg42 @ December 23, 2007 01:25 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 12:41 am

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 12:23 am

[email protected] 22, 2007 11:48 pm

I'm a Richardson supporter.

I'm sorry. WHAT?!?!?!?!. Why are you here? This is a revolutionary leftists forum. Everyone here wants to violently overthrow the US government! When we say "left" we don't mean we're Democrats!

Go support criminals somewhere else.

Can someone restrict her?
I think we should let her talk first....maybe she just doesn't know about revolutionary leftism very well. I say we should let her respond and explain.

Also I think it's better to word the goals of everyone here better in this simple sentence:

A classless, stateless society where the means of production are collectively owned.
I agree, surely left-democrats are just the kind of people we need to debate with. she took the time to come onto a marxist board, I say good for her, she is way more politically aware than most people.
Can a mod please PM her about this. And PLEASE don't scare her away. She may just not know what we're all about and maybe she likes what we talk about but she might not understand what we're ALL about.

I mean the fact that she's got a John Kerry pic and openly supports Bill Richardson can make us think she's just another liberal but she seems to like what we're all saying so someone please look into that. DON'T scare her away, teach her and give her chances. She's not a troll or an evil right-winger. [/b]
good call someone should talk to her. Like a mod or someone.

[Sugar Hill Kevis]

Last week you were detailing in great length about how much of a colossal fucking hardon you had for Alex Jones...

You're a joke

[Marsella]

Originally posted by petey+December 23, 2007 11:19 am--> (petey @ December 23, 2007 11:19 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 01:25 am

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 12:41 am

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 12:23 am

[email protected] 22, 2007 11:48 pm

I'm a Richardson supporter.

I'm sorry. WHAT?!?!?!?!. Why are you here? This is a revolutionary leftists forum. Everyone here wants to violently overthrow the US government! When we say "left" we don't mean we're Democrats!

Go support criminals somewhere else.

Can someone restrict her?
I think we should let her talk first....maybe she just doesn't know about revolutionary leftism very well. I say we should let her respond and explain.

Also I think it's better to word the goals of everyone here better in this simple sentence:

A classless, stateless society where the means of production are collectively owned.
I agree, surely left-democrats are just the kind of people we need to debate with. she took the time to come onto a marxist board, I say good for her, she is way more politically aware than most people.
Can a mod please PM her about this. And PLEASE don't scare her away. She may just not know what we're all about and maybe she likes what we talk about but she might not understand what we're ALL about.

I mean the fact that she's got a John Kerry pic and openly supports Bill Richardson can make us think she's just another liberal but she seems to like what we're all saying so someone please look into that. DON'T scare her away, teach her and give her chances. She's not a troll or an evil right-winger.
good call someone should talk to her. Like a mod or someone. [/b]
Err...you don't need to be a mod to PM someone and talk politics with them. :unsure:

But ZOMG its a girl we shouldn't approach her! :o


Also I think it's better to word the goals of everyone here better in this simple sentence:

A classless, stateless society where the means of production are collectively owned.

True.

All sorts of groups accept the armed overthrow of the US government.

Doesn't really show what they stand for after that government is overthrown. ;)

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 12:04 am
Hello my Avakianist friend and "comrade":

a couple of things for you:

# 1: Don't tell me what to do, i let no man control my words and my destiny, specially those who stink like garlic, not even good old Bush.


#2: You are not a leftist, you are a stalinist and maoist, an Avakianist. Who gives you the authrotity to give me orders, you stalinist revisionist.


# 3: i trust anarchists a lot more than a lot of dogmatic, revisionist XX century leftists


# 4: chill out, take it easy, don't be so mean and aggressive against other leftists here


marxist_god
1. She didn't give you orders. She pointed to the fact that you seem to have misread a post you were responding to.

2. Whether she is a leftist or not, it is not up to you to determine; but even if not, notice that resorting to namecalling isn't acceptable here.

3. Fine. I doubt you will find many anarchists who support conspiracy theories about 9/11 though.

4. Mr. Kettle, please follow the advice you are giving Ms. Pot.

Consider this as a warning; on reincidence, administrative action may follow.

Luís Henrique

[SouthernBelle82]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 11:48 pm

#2: Point: this goes to Luis Henrique: If i question 9-11, does it mean that i am a libertarian free market conspiracy theorist? you lack rational thinking, your dogmatism, slavery to a political party, to an ideology, cultism, sectarianism and revisionism doesn't let u think. So let's see, if Bush likes Pizzas and i eat pizzas it means that i am a neocon?? haha nice try my friend, haha

Nice try, but not exactly the reply i would've liked, i'm into great projects and great politics, not into cheap politics of the obsolete dumb leftists out there who still rely on stalinism, fascism and sectarianism of the XX century (the totally opposite of what Marx wrote)

What was that about? I think you totally misread LH.


I'm a Richardson supporter.

I'm sorry. WHAT?!?!?!?!. Why are you here? This is a revolutionary leftists forum. Everyone here wants to violently overthrow the US government! When we say "left" we don't mean we're Democrats!

Go support criminals somewhere else.

Can someone restrict her?
Don't tell me where to go. I support Richardson so get over it. Oh I see. So you're going to restrict me because of who I support for president. :rolleyes: Contradicting yourself there.

[SouthernBelle82]

Originally posted by marxist_god+December 23, 2007 12:11 am--> (marxist_god @ December 23, 2007 12:11 am)
[email protected] 22, 2007 11:48 pm
Everyone here wants to violently overthrow the US government!


hey by the way do you wanna overthrow US government by killing a lot of inocent civilians like ETA, Al Qaeda or any other terrorist organization out there? Coz i am a revolutionary marxist, not a killer. Read more about Marxism and Leninism please

marxist_god [/b]
Looks like you should be restricted too. Oh the horror!

[SouthernBelle82]

Originally posted by Zurdito+December 23, 2007 12:41 am--> (Zurdito @ December 23, 2007 12:41 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 12:23 am

[email protected] 22, 2007 11:48 pm

I'm a Richardson supporter.

I'm sorry. WHAT?!?!?!?!. Why are you here? This is a revolutionary leftists forum. Everyone here wants to violently overthrow the US government! When we say "left" we don't mean we're Democrats!

Go support criminals somewhere else.

Can someone restrict her?
I think we should let her talk first....maybe she just doesn't know about revolutionary leftism very well. I say we should let her respond and explain.

Also I think it's better to word the goals of everyone here better in this simple sentence:

A classless, stateless society where the means of production are collectively owned.
I agree, surely left-democrats are just the kind of people we need to debate with. she took the time to come onto a marxist board, I say good for her, she is way more politically aware than most people. [/b]
I joined the board because I was/am a socialist and I like talking to like minded people especially after getting beaten up on other boards for the past seven years. Just because I don't want a stateless country etc. doesn't make me any more less of a socialist. You never hear Hugo Chavez talk about getting rid of boarders.

[SouthernBelle82]

Originally posted by bootleg42+December 23, 2007 01:25 am--> (bootleg42 @ December 23, 2007 01:25 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 12:41 am

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 12:23 am

[email protected] 22, 2007 11:48 pm

I'm a Richardson supporter.

I'm sorry. WHAT?!?!?!?!. Why are you here? This is a revolutionary leftists forum. Everyone here wants to violently overthrow the US government! When we say "left" we don't mean we're Democrats!

Go support criminals somewhere else.

Can someone restrict her?
I think we should let her talk first....maybe she just doesn't know about revolutionary leftism very well. I say we should let her respond and explain.

Also I think it's better to word the goals of everyone here better in this simple sentence:

A classless, stateless society where the means of production are collectively owned.
I agree, surely left-democrats are just the kind of people we need to debate with. she took the time to come onto a marxist board, I say good for her, she is way more politically aware than most people.
Can a mod please PM her about this. And PLEASE don't scare her away. She may just not know what we're all about and maybe she likes what we talk about but she might not understand what we're ALL about.

I mean the fact that she's got a John Kerry pic and openly supports Bill Richardson can make us think she's just another liberal but she seems to like what we're all saying so someone please look into that. DON'T scare her away, teach her and give her chances. She's not a troll or an evil right-winger. [/b]
I have a John Kerry avatar pic. OH THE HORROR! OH THE CRIME OF THE CENTURY! Yes that's sarcasm if you couldn't painfully note. And no I'm not a liberal I'm a socialist. And yes I support Richardson for president. My original candidate was Gravel but he's not going anywhere so my realistic choice is Richardson.

[marxist_god]

Originally posted by SouthernBelle82+December 24, 2007 01:02 am--> (SouthernBelle82 @ December 24, 2007 01:02 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 01:25 am

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 12:41 am

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 12:23 am

[email protected] 22, 2007 11:48 pm

I'm a Richardson supporter.

I'm sorry. WHAT?!?!?!?!. Why are you here? This is a revolutionary leftists forum. Everyone here wants to violently overthrow the US government! When we say "left" we don't mean we're Democrats!

Go support criminals somewhere else.

Can someone restrict her?
I think we should let her talk first....maybe she just doesn't know about revolutionary leftism very well. I say we should let her respond and explain.

Also I think it's better to word the goals of everyone here better in this simple sentence:

A classless, stateless society where the means of production are collectively owned.
I agree, surely left-democrats are just the kind of people we need to debate with. she took the time to come onto a marxist board, I say good for her, she is way more politically aware than most people.
Can a mod please PM her about this. And PLEASE don't scare her away. She may just not know what we're all about and maybe she likes what we talk about but she might not understand what we're ALL about.

I mean the fact that she's got a John Kerry pic and openly supports Bill Richardson can make us think she's just another liberal but she seems to like what we're all saying so someone please look into that. DON'T scare her away, teach her and give her chances. She's not a troll or an evil right-winger.
I have a John Kerry avatar pic. OH THE HORROR! OH THE CRIME OF THE CENTURY! Yes that's sarcasm if you couldn't painfully note. And no I'm not a liberal I'm a socialist. And yes I support Richardson for president. My original candidate was Gravel but he's not going anywhere so my realistic choice is Richardson. [/b]


hahaha, i thought that was a picture of yourself, haha

marxist_god

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 09:02 pm
I have a John Kerry avatar pic. OH THE HORROR! OH THE CRIME OF THE CENTURY! Yes that's sarcasm if you couldn't painfully note. And no I'm not a liberal I'm a socialist. And yes I support Richardson for president. My original candidate was Gravel but he's not going anywhere so my realistic choice is Richardson.
All three above listed men are capitalists and voting for them will do nothing because whether 'right' or 'left' at the end of the day they will still act within the interests of the American bourgeois and state. Voting is pointless.

Are you a Social-Democrat? Is that what you mean by Socialist?

[bootleg42]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 01:00 am
Just because I don't want a stateless country etc. doesn't make me any more less of a socialist.

No. It makes you a social democrat. Social democrats are more to the left than the U.S. liberals so you're not a liberal, hence the reason you feel more to the left than them.

We all here want a classless and stateless society where the means of production are in the hands of workers themselves. We all have our different ways of getting there. If this is not your goal....then I'm sorry. I urge you to read up on actual revolutionary works:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/date/index.htm

^^^That's all of Marx's and Engel's work sorted out by date. Also you should read up on the philosopher Hegel because in order to understand Marx well, you must be familiar with Hegel.

Also about the fact that we don't see Chavez wanting to weaken or get rid of the state......by saying this, it shows that you are not too familiar on the topic of revolutionary leftism too well OR it shows that you're an anarchist (which it seems you're not). I'll explain.

Though we here have many criticisms of Chavez, he himself has shown signs that he would weaken his government and give power to the workers councils. Also when one looks at his progression, you can see he moves more radical as the workers become more radical. He didn't even speak of socialism in 2001 or 2002. Bottom line, he cares about workers. The only reason he hasn't done what most of us would love to do is because he is restricted by the mechanisms of the STATE (a concept you should know about if you're going to be talking with us).

Also I would re-think about Richardson and Kerry and the support of Democrats. They see Chavez as an evil dictator and will all support and fund CIA operations against him. Bill Clinton funded operations to kill Castro and Clinton has done similar things to put down people's wants. He funded the Colombian right wing paramilitary actions in the 90's. Bottom line, all democrats and republicans are the same shit and they are both two factions of the party of business. Please know this.

Also don't take all this as an attack on you. We are now just debating you. We always, here at revleft, debate each other. We have quite the most interesting battles here. But we all have the ultimate goal of eliminating the state itself (both communists and anarchists alike). This is what makes us "revolutionary". By respecting and liking "the state", you lose the "revolutionary" element to your politics.

[SouthernBelle82]

Originally posted by Cryotank Screams+December 24, 2007 01:14 am--> (Cryotank Screams @ December 24, 2007 01:14 am)
[email protected] 23, 2007 09:02 pm
I have a John Kerry avatar pic. OH THE HORROR! OH THE CRIME OF THE CENTURY! Yes that's sarcasm if you couldn't painfully note. And no I'm not a liberal I'm a socialist. And yes I support Richardson for president. My original candidate was Gravel but he's not going anywhere so my realistic choice is Richardson.
All three above listed men are capitalists and voting for them will do nothing because whether 'right' or 'left' at the end of the day they will still act within the interests of the American bourgeois and state. Voting is pointless.

Are you a Social-Democrat? Is that what you mean by Socialist? [/b]
No that's not what I mean. What I said is what I mean.

[bootleg42]

Both Cryotank Screams and I (almost at the very same time) have accused you of being a social democrat. You claim not to be one. Then I as kyou to please explain why. You support the existence of the state itself. Why???? What is the state to you??

[SouthernBelle82]

Originally posted by bootleg42+December 24, 2007 01:25 am--> (bootleg42 @ December 24, 2007 01:25 am)
[email protected] 24, 2007 01:00 am
Just because I don't want a stateless country etc. doesn't make me any more less of a socialist.

No. It makes you a social democrat. Social democrats are more to the left than the U.S. liberals so you're not a liberal, hence the reason you feel more to the left than them.

We all here want a classless and stateless society where the means of production are in the hands of workers themselves. We all have our different ways of getting there. If this is not your goal....then I'm sorry. I urge you to read up on actual revolutionary works:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/date/index.htm

^^^That's all of Marx's and Engel's work sorted out by date. Also you should read up on the philosopher Hegel because in order to understand Marx well, you must be familiar with Hegel.

Also about the fact that we don't see Chavez wanting to weaken or get rid of the state......by saying this, it shows that you are not too familiar on the topic of revolutionary leftism too well OR it shows that you're an anarchist (which it seems you're not). I'll explain.

Though we here have many criticisms of Chavez, he himself has shown signs that he would weaken his government and give power to the workers councils. Also when one looks at his progression, you can see he moves more radical as the workers become more radical. He didn't even speak of socialism in 2001 or 2002. Bottom line, he cares about workers. The only reason he hasn't done what most of us would love to do is because he is restricted by the mechanisms of the STATE (a concept you should know about if you're going to be talking with us).

Also I would re-think about Richardson and Kerry and the support of Democrats. They see Chavez as an evil dictator and will all support and fund CIA operations against him. Bill Clinton funded operations to kill Castro and Clinton has done similar things to put down people's wants. He funded the Colombian right wing paramilitary actions in the 90's. Bottom line, all democrats and republicans are the same shit and they are both two factions of the party of business. Please know this.

Also don't take all this as an attack on you. We are now just debating you. We always, here at revleft, debate each other. We have quite the most interesting battles here. But we all have the ultimate goal of eliminating the state itself (both communists and anarchists alike). This is what makes us "revolutionary". By respecting and liking "the state", you lose the "revolutionary" element to your politics. [/b]
Well as I've said I agree about classless but not stateless since I believe in sovreignty. I do agree that worker councils should have more say with the corporations and jobs etc. than the government itself. However I think if you can use the government in a positive light than you should do so such as with the antipollution laws against corporations and making laws to keep jobs here instead of sending them over seas. Well goes to show what you know about Richardson. Richardson has talked even to Saddam Hussein and gotten political prisoners released so if he can talk to Hussein he'd talk to Chavez. Same thing with Kerry. Kerry has done a hell of a lot to fight corportaist etc. BCCI for example. Google that whole thing if you don't know. He's even fought the CIA with the drug smuggling in the 80's. John Kerry is also a big supporter of unions and small businesses. Hardly a huge capitalist.

[SouthernBelle82]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 01:37 am
Both Cryotank Screams and I (almost at the very same time) have accused you of being a social democrat. You claim not to be one. Then I as kyou to please explain why. You support the existence of the state itself. Why???? What is the state to you??
Why? I've already told you why. I respect sovreignty. I also believe in the state because the state can do more to help the people than just your average citizen etc. I agree with everything socialists do except removing the state. That's why I'm a socialist. Because of the policies I believe in. Oh the horror if I disagree with one thing. :rolleyes:

[bootleg42]

Well as I've said I agree about classless but not stateless since I believe in sovreignty

This proves that you don't know about the concept of what the state is.

The state protects the class system. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR THERE TO BE A CLASSLESS SOCIETY WITH A STATE!!! Classes only exist today because of the existence of the state.

The state is the product and demonstration of the irresolvable tension between the different classes that exist in the world. So how can there be a classless society with a state still existing?????


Richardson has talked even to Saddam Hussein and gotten political prisoners released so if he can talk to Hussein he'd talk to Chavez. Same thing with Kerry. Kerry has done a hell of a lot to fight corportaist etc. BCCI for example. Google that whole thing if you don't know. He's even fought the CIA with the drug smuggling in the 80's.

Then you might not know U.S. politicians well. They'll talk to people, then try to kill him anyway.

Also all this is part of we call "bourgeoisie theater", meaning that the poor and the working class is not represented by all these "stories" of the bourgeoisie.

[marxist_god]

Originally posted by SouthernBelle82+December 24, 2007 01:44 am--> (SouthernBelle82 @ December 24, 2007 01:44 am)
[email protected] 24, 2007 01:37 am
Both Cryotank Screams and I (almost at the very same time) have accused you of being a social democrat. You claim not to be one. Then I as kyou to please explain why. You support the existence of the state itself. Why???? What is the state to you??
Why? I've already told you why. I respect sovreignty. I also believe in the state because the state can do more to help the people than just your average citizen etc. I agree with everything socialists do except removing the state. That's why I'm a socialist. Because of the policies I believe in. Oh the horror if I disagree with one thing. :rolleyes: [/b]


Southernbell: hi my friend, well the socialist-state (socialism) is a transitional-stage between representative-capitalism (our present time) and anarchist-communism. Socialism is not real democracy, it is a transitional-stage until we reach in the future a transhumanist-futuristic anarchist-communism. But to reach that system we need to evolve a lot more in all sectors psychologically, scientifically. No nation is socialist yet, the whole world is capitalist, because of the fact that for socialism to happen most industrialized nations of this world would have to be socialist, because socialism in 1 country is almost impossible

marxist_god

[bootleg42]

That's just the leninist version of it...and it's somewhat a poor description of it.

To anyone, if you want a description or example of socialism, look at the paris communes. Look it up.

[SouthernBelle82]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 01:50 am

Well as I've said I agree about classless but not stateless since I believe in sovreignty

This proves that you don't know about the concept of what the state is.

The state protects the class system. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR THERE TO BE A CLASSLESS SOCIETY WITH A STATE!!! Classes only exist today because of the existence of the state.

The state is the product and demonstration of the irresolvable tension between the different classes that exist in the world. So how can there be a classless society with a state still existing?????


Richardson has talked even to Saddam Hussein and gotten political prisoners released so if he can talk to Hussein he'd talk to Chavez. Same thing with Kerry. Kerry has done a hell of a lot to fight corportaist etc. BCCI for example. Google that whole thing if you don't know. He's even fought the CIA with the drug smuggling in the 80's.

Then you might not know U.S. politicians well. They'll talk to people, then try to kill him anyway.

Also all this is part of we call "bourgeoisie theater", meaning that the poor and the working class is not represented by all these "stories" of the bourgeoisie.
Well sorry but I don't see Richardson trying to kill Chavez but quite the opposite. I wouldn't be surprised if they even become friends. Chavez has been quoted saying that he talked to Clinton all the time and they were on friendly terms. Well to have that what you mention you have to get everyone thinking the same about it and of course that isn't going to happen so you elect politicians who do and who can make the laws etc. that way of thinking. I guess I'm just at the point where I'm not too sure about getting rid of states. Not saying I never will be but just right now I'm not. See where I'm coming from? I'm still new to socialism as well so I guess I'm still trying to find my exact place.

[SouthernBelle82]

Originally posted by marxist_god+December 24, 2007 02:01 am--> (marxist_god @ December 24, 2007 02:01 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 01:44 am

[email protected] 24, 2007 01:37 am
Both Cryotank Screams and I (almost at the very same time) have accused you of being a social democrat. You claim not to be one. Then I as kyou to please explain why. You support the existence of the state itself. Why???? What is the state to you??
Why? I've already told you why. I respect sovreignty. I also believe in the state because the state can do more to help the people than just your average citizen etc. I agree with everything socialists do except removing the state. That's why I'm a socialist. Because of the policies I believe in. Oh the horror if I disagree with one thing. :rolleyes:


Southernbell: hi my friend, well the socialist-state (socialism) is a transitional-stage between representative-capitalism (our present time) and anarchist-communism. Socialism is not real democracy, it is a transitional-stage until we reach in the future a transhumanist-futuristic anarchist-communism. But to reach that system we need to evolve a lot more in all sectors psychologically, scientifically. No nation is socialist yet, the whole world is capitalist, because of the fact that for socialism to happen most industrialized nations of this world would have to be socialist, because socialism in 1 country is almost impossible

marxist_god [/b]
Hi marxist. Well I understand that but I guess I right now at this point in time where I'm still new to socialism and I love basically everything about it and I love what Chavez is doing and the Bolivarian Revolution.

[bootleg42]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 02:32 am
I guess I'm just at the point where I'm not too sure about getting rid of states. Not saying I never will be but just right now I'm not. See where I'm coming from? I'm still new to socialism as well so I guess I'm still trying to find my exact place.
This is why I said earlier that they should not restrict you, that you just need to get to learn some things that are never thought in United Statian politics. You're not the part of the "problem" but a potential part of the solution but you need to learn more.

This is why I suggest you do read Marx and read the plentyful amount of posts we have here. Also don't just memorize stuff and following stuff blindly (whether it be stuff learned here from the revolutionary left to the stuff they teach you in schools there in the U.S., etc). Think for yourself, challenge yourself, and DO NO becoming dogmatic. Look at my description under my name. It says "non-dogmatic communist" for a reason.

Understand that in this site, we're made up of either:

Communists (me) or anarchists. We all here look for a stateless, classless society where the means of production is in the hands of workers themselves and not owners (whether they be small business owners or large big business owners).

The reason we see this is beause we've realized (through a long look of history) that the state itself is oppressive to people.

The state itself was invented out the unsolvable tensions there has always been between classes and it's a demonstration of that tension that still exists today.

There is so much to learn. I suggest you start reading and anything you don't understand or want to talk about, we're all here. Have fun.

[SouthernBelle82]

Originally posted by bootleg42+December 24, 2007 03:05 am--> (bootleg42 @ December 24, 2007 03:05 am)
[email protected] 24, 2007 02:32 am
I guess I'm just at the point where I'm not too sure about getting rid of states. Not saying I never will be but just right now I'm not. See where I'm coming from? I'm still new to socialism as well so I guess I'm still trying to find my exact place.
This is why I said earlier that they should not restrict you, that you just need to get to learn some things that are never thought in United Statian politics. You're not the part of the "problem" but a potential part of the solution but you need to learn more.

This is why I suggest you do read Marx and read the plentyful amount of posts we have here. Also don't just memorize stuff and following stuff blindly (whether it be stuff learned here from the revolutionary left to the stuff they teach you in schools there in the U.S., etc). Think for yourself, challenge yourself, and DO NO becoming dogmatic. Look at my description under my name. It says "non-dogmatic communist" for a reason.

Understand that in this site, we're made up of either:

Communists (me) or anarchists. We all here look for a stateless, classless society where the means of production is in the hands of workers themselves and not owners (whether they be small business owners or large big business owners).

The reason we see this is beause we've realized (through a long look of history) that the state itself is oppressive to people.

The state itself was invented out the unsolvable tensions there has always been between classes and it's a demonstration of that tension that still exists today.

There is so much to learn. I suggest you start reading and anything you don't understand or want to talk about, we're all here. Have fun. [/b]
Yea. I've just recently become into the whole socialist movement. I used to be liberal but it never really felt right and that's when I started doing research on Chavez for a presentation for class because of the rightwing media spin against him and thought people should hear more about him and that's when I started researching socialism and agreed with it's general philsophies. I do think the state can do both though. Look at Bobby Kennedy and how he helped with racism issues during his time as attorney general so the state can do both.

[marxist_god]

Originally posted by bootleg42+December 24, 2007 03:05 am--> (bootleg42 @ December 24, 2007 03:05 am)
[email protected] 24, 2007 02:32 am
I guess I'm just at the point where I'm not too sure about getting rid of states. Not saying I never will be but just right now I'm not. See where I'm coming from? I'm still new to socialism as well so I guess I'm still trying to find my exact place.
This is why I said earlier that they should not restrict you, that you just need to get to learn some things that are never thought in United Statian politics. You're not the part of the "problem" but a potential part of the solution but you need to learn more.

This is why I suggest you do read Marx and read the plentyful amount of posts we have here. Also don't just memorize stuff and following stuff blindly (whether it be stuff learned here from the revolutionary left to the stuff they teach you in schools there in the U.S., etc). Think for yourself, challenge yourself, and DO NO becoming dogmatic. Look at my description under my name. It says "non-dogmatic communist" for a reason.

Understand that in this site, we're made up of either:

Communists (me) or anarchists. We all here look for a stateless, classless society where the means of production is in the hands of workers themselves and not owners (whether they be small business owners or large big business owners).

The reason we see this is beause we've realized (through a long look of history) that the state itself is oppressive to people.

The state itself was invented out the unsolvable tensions there has always been between classes and it's a demonstration of that tension that still exists today.

There is so much to learn. I suggest you start reading and anything you don't understand or want to talk about, we're all here. Have fun. [/b]


Hey my friends, Southernbelle is real smart about politics, besides socialism is not a competitive, Malthusian ideology on who has the best IQ and knowledge, it is about changing the world.

Read this news by Will Smith and what he thought of Hitler:

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0%2...05961%2C00.html (http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0%2C21985%2C22968708-5005961%2C00.html)


Will Smith sees the good in HitlerArticle from: Font size: Decrease Increase Email article: Email Print article: Print By staff writers

December 24, 2007 10:36am
US actor Will Smith has stunned fans by reportedly declaring that Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler was essentially a "good" person.

In an interview with Scottish newspaper The Daily Record, the 39-year-old Men In Black star said he did not believe Hitler fully understood what effect his policies would have.

"Even Hitler didn't wake up going, 'Let me do the most evil thing I can do today," Smith told the newspaper in a wide-ranging interview.

"I think he woke up in the morning and using a twisted, backwards logic, he set out to do what he thought was 'good'.

"Stuff like that just needs reprogramming," Smith said in the interview reported on by World Entertainment News.

Hitler's totalitarian leadership as Germany's leader from 1934 until 1945 resulted in the deaths of an estimated six million Jews in the Holocaust and his invasion of Poland in 1939 led to the start of World War II.

[bootleg42]

marxist_god, you make no sense, you copy and paste in such sloppy fashion, you don't know much about revolutionary leftism other than a few summaries you probably read in wikipedia, and you spam like crazy about things that are WAY off-topic like some sort of paranoid conspiracy theorist.

Earlier in this thread, we asked if SouthernBelle82 should have been restricted but I'm convinced she should stay to learn.

You on the other hand......I think we should restrict you on the grounds that you spam a lot, and post up responses that get WAY off topic too many times.

You could not even answer what dialectal materialism is.

[SouthernBelle82]

Originally posted by marxist_god+December 24, 2007 05:18 am--> (marxist_god @ December 24, 2007 05:18 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 03:05 am

[email protected] 24, 2007 02:32 am
I guess I'm just at the point where I'm not too sure about getting rid of states. Not saying I never will be but just right now I'm not. See where I'm coming from? I'm still new to socialism as well so I guess I'm still trying to find my exact place.
This is why I said earlier that they should not restrict you, that you just need to get to learn some things that are never thought in United Statian politics. You're not the part of the "problem" but a potential part of the solution but you need to learn more.

This is why I suggest you do read Marx and read the plentyful amount of posts we have here. Also don't just memorize stuff and following stuff blindly (whether it be stuff learned here from the revolutionary left to the stuff they teach you in schools there in the U.S., etc). Think for yourself, challenge yourself, and DO NO becoming dogmatic. Look at my description under my name. It says "non-dogmatic communist" for a reason.

Understand that in this site, we're made up of either:

Communists (me) or anarchists. We all here look for a stateless, classless society where the means of production is in the hands of workers themselves and not owners (whether they be small business owners or large big business owners).

The reason we see this is beause we've realized (through a long look of history) that the state itself is oppressive to people.

The state itself was invented out the unsolvable tensions there has always been between classes and it's a demonstration of that tension that still exists today.

There is so much to learn. I suggest you start reading and anything you don't understand or want to talk about, we're all here. Have fun.


Hey my friends, Southernbelle is real smart about politics, besides socialism is not a competitive, Malthusian ideology on who has the best IQ and knowledge, it is about changing the world.

Read this news by Will Smith and what he thought of Hitler:

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0%2...05961%2C00.html (http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0%2C21985%2C22968708-5005961%2C00.html)


Will Smith sees the good in HitlerArticle from: Font size: Decrease Increase Email article: Email Print article: Print By staff writers

December 24, 2007 10:36am
US actor Will Smith has stunned fans by reportedly declaring that Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler was essentially a "good" person.

In an interview with Scottish newspaper The Daily Record, the 39-year-old Men In Black star said he did not believe Hitler fully understood what effect his policies would have.

"Even Hitler didn't wake up going, 'Let me do the most evil thing I can do today," Smith told the newspaper in a wide-ranging interview.

"I think he woke up in the morning and using a twisted, backwards logic, he set out to do what he thought was 'good'.

"Stuff like that just needs reprogramming," Smith said in the interview reported on by World Entertainment News.

Hitler's totalitarian leadership as Germany's leader from 1934 until 1945 resulted in the deaths of an estimated six million Jews in the Holocaust and his invasion of Poland in 1939 led to the start of World War II. [/b]
No where did I say I thought Hitler was good. I think he's an evil son of a ***** who deserves to rot in hell and I don't even believe in a physical hell. I'm disgusted by Smith's comments. He should try reading more WWII history.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 10:32 pm
I wouldn't be surprised if they even become friends. Chavez has been quoted saying that he talked to Clinton all the time and they were on friendly terms.
Who would have thought two capitalist leaders could get along, <_<.


Well to have that what you mention you have to get everyone thinking the same about it and of course that isn&#39;t going to happen so you elect politicians who do and who can make the laws etc. that way of thinking.

Reform? Evolution not revolution? Ballots not bullets? Sounds like Social-Democracy to me.


I guess I&#39;m just at the point where I&#39;m not too sure about getting rid of states.

Once society has progressed to a certain point technologically, economically and socially it would be very possible to have a stateless society, you just need a base and society has to progress to a point where it would be possible.

[SouthernBelle82]

Originally posted by Cryotank Screams+December 24, 2007 05:35 pm--> (Cryotank Screams @ December 24, 2007 05:35 pm)
[email protected] 23, 2007 10:32 pm
I wouldn&#39;t be surprised if they even become friends. Chavez has been quoted saying that he talked to Clinton all the time and they were on friendly terms.
Who would have thought two capitalist leaders could get along, <_<.


Well to have that what you mention you have to get everyone thinking the same about it and of course that isn&#39;t going to happen so you elect politicians who do and who can make the laws etc. that way of thinking.

Reform? Evolution not revolution? Ballots not bullets? Sounds like Social-Democracy to me.


I guess I&#39;m just at the point where I&#39;m not too sure about getting rid of states.

Once society has progressed to a certain point technologically, economically and socially it would be very possible to have a stateless society, you just need a base and society has to progress to a point where it would be possible. [/b]
Chavez a capitalist leader? I hardly think not. Clinton sure but Chavez no. You need to do more research on Chavez then.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 01:29 am
You need to do more research on Chavez then.
Despite what comrades here may feel about him, just because he chants the names of Marx and Lenin, becomes an ally of Castro and advocates a gentler form of capitalism doesn&#39;t make him a Socialist nor does it make the Bolivarian &#39;Revolution&#39; a proletarian revolution nor does it make it in any way ‘Socialist’. A Socialist revolution can only be carried out by the proletariat in a violent overthrow not through a bourgeois politician.

[Redscare102]

Originally posted by Cryotank Screams+December 26, 2007 10:24 pm--> (Cryotank Screams @ December 26, 2007 10:24 pm)
[email protected] 26, 2007 01:29 am
You need to do more research on Chavez then.
Despite what comrades here may feel about him, just because he chants the names of Marx and Lenin, becomes an ally of Castro and advocates a gentler form of capitalism doesn&#39;t make him a Socialist nor does it make the Bolivarian &#39;Revolution&#39; a proletarian revolution nor does it make it in any way ‘Socialist’. A Socialist revolution can only be carried out by the proletariat in a violent overthrow not through a bourgeois politician. [/b]
Exactly&#33; Chavez and Morales are better than Bush and Sharon, but they aren&#39;t communists. Socialists, yes. Communists, no. They&#39;re a step in the right direction, but, despite what the US media says, they are not communists.

[SouthernBelle82]

Originally posted by Cryotank Screams+December 26, 2007 10:24 pm--> (Cryotank Screams @ December 26, 2007 10:24 pm)
[email protected] 26, 2007 01:29 am
You need to do more research on Chavez then.
Despite what comrades here may feel about him, just because he chants the names of Marx and Lenin, becomes an ally of Castro and advocates a gentler form of capitalism doesn&#39;t make him a Socialist nor does it make the Bolivarian &#39;Revolution&#39; a proletarian revolution nor does it make it in any way ‘Socialist’. A Socialist revolution can only be carried out by the proletariat in a violent overthrow not through a bourgeois politician. [/b]
Then you need to do more research again. Start with "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised."

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 09:43 pm
Then you need to do more research again. Start with "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised."
How does a documentary on the attempted &#39;02 coup refute anything I have said? More importantly what evidence do you have that thoroughly proves Chávez and Venezuela are Socialist and how a Socialist revolution can occur via bourgeois institutions and not by proletarian revolution and seizure?

[SouthernBelle82]

Originally posted by Cryotank Screams+December 27, 2007 02:14 am--> (Cryotank Screams @ December 27, 2007 02:14 am)
[email protected] 26, 2007 09:43 pm
Then you need to do more research again. Start with "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised."
How does a documentary on the attempted &#39;02 coup refute anything I have said? More importantly what evidence do you have that thoroughly proves Chávez and Venezuela are Socialist and how a Socialist revolution can occur via bourgeois institutions and not by proletarian revolution and seizure? [/b]
It talks about his policy&#39;s too.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 10:18 pm
It talks about his policy&#39;s too.
Point being? &#39;Nice&#39; and &#39;gentle&#39; policies do not a Socialist state make.

[Zurdito]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 10:42 pm
Exactly&#33; Chavez and Morales are better than Bush and Sharon,
hmmm...in a "formal logic" sense. ;)

However I think we need to be careful when we talk about "better" or "worse" when referring to bourgeois governments. Chavez is sabotaging a revolution. In one sense, that&#39;s worse for our movement than anything Bush can do to us.

[SouthernBelle82]

Originally posted by Cryotank Screams+December 27, 2007 02:23 am--> (Cryotank Screams @ December 27, 2007 02:23 am)
[email protected] 26, 2007 10:18 pm
It talks about his policy&#39;s too.
Point being? &#39;Nice&#39; and &#39;gentle&#39; policies do not a Socialist state make. [/b]
Yeah it does. If his policy&#39;s go by what socialism is about. You&#39;re expecting Chavez to just rush into things it seems. He doesn&#39;t do that. He didn&#39;t even talk about socialism till after a while.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 10:43 pm
Yeah it does. If his policy&#39;s go by what socialism is about. You&#39;re expecting Chavez to just rush into things it seems. He doesn&#39;t do that. He didn&#39;t even talk about socialism till after a while.
What Socialism is about? So you&#39;re claiming that via policies being enacted in a bourgeois institution under a capitalist economy he can shift the control over the means of production and capital over to the proletariat? To the Socialist mode of production? That all the revolutionary tasks that should be carried out by the proletariat can be carried out by one politician? No, this is impossible, these things can only be achieved by the proletariat themselves via revolution not by politicians and representatives acting in their name especially not like Chávez in Venezuela. He is a reformer and it is impossible to reform capitalism into Socialism.

As &#39;nice&#39; and ‘red’ as he may appear, he is still a capitalist.

[marxist_god]

Originally posted by SouthernBelle82+December 27, 2007 02:43 am--> (SouthernBelle82 @ December 27, 2007 02:43 am)
Originally posted by Cryotank [email protected] 27, 2007 02:23 am

[email protected] 26, 2007 10:18 pm
It talks about his policy&#39;s too.
Point being? &#39;Nice&#39; and &#39;gentle&#39; policies do not a Socialist state make.
Yeah it does. If his policy&#39;s go by what socialism is about. You&#39;re expecting Chavez to just rush into things it seems. He doesn&#39;t do that. He didn&#39;t even talk about socialism till after a while. [/b]

SouthernBelle: Tell the people who hate Chavez, to go to amazon book store and get a lot of books on how to get into the world of politics, campaigning, so that they could start a political party become presidents and change this country real fast from capitalist to socialism. Maybe they will realize that Chavez is not wrong, because changing a country from capitalism to socialism is not real easy after all

marxist_god

[Zurdito]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 03:42 am
SouthernBelle: Tell the people who hate Chavez, to go to amazon book store and get a lot of books on how to get into the world of politics, campaigning, so that they could...change this country real fast from capitalist to socialism.
:rolleyes: what do you think we do with our free time?

If you want an example of someone in Venezuela who *really* spends their whole life fighting for socialism, look up C-Cura or Orlando Chirinos.

[SouthernBelle82]

Originally posted by Cryotank Screams+December 27, 2007 03:03 am--> (Cryotank Screams @ December 27, 2007 03:03 am)
[email protected] 26, 2007 10:43 pm
Yeah it does. If his policy&#39;s go by what socialism is about. You&#39;re expecting Chavez to just rush into things it seems. He doesn&#39;t do that. He didn&#39;t even talk about socialism till after a while.
What Socialism is about? So you&#39;re claiming that via policies being enacted in a bourgeois institution under a capitalist economy he can shift the control over the means of production and capital over to the proletariat? To the Socialist mode of production? That all the revolutionary tasks that should be carried out by the proletariat can be carried out by one politician? No, this is impossible, these things can only be achieved by the proletariat themselves via revolution not by politicians and representatives acting in their name especially not like Chávez in Venezuela. He is a reformer and it is impossible to reform capitalism into Socialism.

As &#39;nice&#39; and ‘red’ as he may appear, he is still a capitalist. [/b]
Google what he says about capitalism and neoliberalism. Just because you claim someone is something doesn&#39;t mean it&#39;s true.

[SouthernBelle82]

Originally posted by marxist_god+December 27, 2007 03:42 am--> (marxist_god @ December 27, 2007 03:42 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 02:43 am

Originally posted by Cryotank [email protected] 27, 2007 02:23 am

[email protected] 26, 2007 10:18 pm
It talks about his policy&#39;s too.
Point being? &#39;Nice&#39; and &#39;gentle&#39; policies do not a Socialist state make.
Yeah it does. If his policy&#39;s go by what socialism is about. You&#39;re expecting Chavez to just rush into things it seems. He doesn&#39;t do that. He didn&#39;t even talk about socialism till after a while.

SouthernBelle: Tell the people who hate Chavez, to go to amazon book store and get a lot of books on how to get into the world of politics, campaigning, so that they could start a political party become presidents and change this country real fast from capitalist to socialism. Maybe they will realize that Chavez is not wrong, because changing a country from capitalism to socialism is not real easy after all

marxist_god [/b]
Of course not. And before Chavez even the president before him (the one who he tried to over throw in 1992) was a total capitalist and favorited the top 1%. It&#39;s only been since 1998 I believe that Chavez has been president. It does take time and Chavez does still have opposition in Venezuela. Google the Bolivarian Revolution and what they&#39;re doing. Also visit http://www.handsoffvenezuela.org

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 12:55 am
Google what he says about capitalism and neoliberalism. Just because you claim someone is something doesn&#39;t mean it&#39;s true.
“Everyday I become more convinced, there is no doubt in my mind, and as many intellectuals have said, that it is necessary to transcend capitalism. But capitalism can’t be transcended from within capitalism itself, but through socialism, true socialism, with equality and justice. But I’m also convinced that it is possible to do it under democracy, but not in the type of democracy being imposed from Washington."-Hugo Chávez.

Meaning he thinks he can reform and smile his way to Socialism. Just because he &#39;talks the talk&#39; and uses &#39;nice&#39; words like "justice, equality and Socialism," doesn&#39;t make him any less of capitalist or any less a bourgeois politician.

[Zurdito]

“Everyday I become more convinced, there is no doubt in my mind, and as many intellectuals have said, that it is necessary to transcend capitalism. But capitalism can’t be transcended from within capitalism itself, but through socialism, true socialism, with equality and justice. But I’m also convinced that it is possible to do it under democracy, but not in the type of democracy being imposed from Washington."-Hugo Chávez.

I&#39;m no fan of Chavez but there is nothing at all wrong with that quote. A true workers revolution is demcoracy in action. Chavez problem is that he is too undemocratic, not the opposite.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 11:25 am
I&#39;m no fan of Chavez but there is nothing at all wrong with that quote. A true workers revolution is demcoracy in action. Chavez problem is that he is too undemocratic, not the opposite.
What I find wrong with the quote is essentially what he is saying by &#39;democracy&#39; is that Socialism can be achieved via bourgeois democracy and reforms not by proletarian revolution and the proletariat seizing power because if you notice he doesn&#39;t say, hint or even mention anything about workers having control or leading a revolution rather he says capitalism can only be &#39;transcended&#39; through "true socialism, with equality and justice." I think it&#39;s ironic also that he says "But capitalism can’t be transcended from within capitalism itself," when that&#39;s exactly what he is trying to do.

[SouthernBelle82]

Originally posted by Cryotank Screams+December 27, 2007 02:59 pm--> (Cryotank Screams @ December 27, 2007 02:59 pm)
[email protected] 27, 2007 12:55 am
Google what he says about capitalism and neoliberalism. Just because you claim someone is something doesn&#39;t mean it&#39;s true.
“Everyday I become more convinced, there is no doubt in my mind, and as many intellectuals have said, that it is necessary to transcend capitalism. But capitalism can’t be transcended from within capitalism itself, but through socialism, true socialism, with equality and justice. But I’m also convinced that it is possible to do it under democracy, but not in the type of democracy being imposed from Washington."-Hugo Chávez.

Meaning he thinks he can reform and smile his way to Socialism. Just because he &#39;talks the talk&#39; and uses &#39;nice&#39; words like "justice, equality and Socialism," doesn&#39;t make him any less of capitalist or any less a bourgeois politician. [/b]
Which means letting the people decide. :rolleyes:

[SouthernBelle82]

Originally posted by [email protected]ember 27, 2007 03:25 pm

“Everyday I become more convinced, there is no doubt in my mind, and as many intellectuals have said, that it is necessary to transcend capitalism. But capitalism can’t be transcended from within capitalism itself, but through socialism, true socialism, with equality and justice. But I’m also convinced that it is possible to do it under democracy, but not in the type of democracy being imposed from Washington."-Hugo Chávez.

I&#39;m no fan of Chavez but there is nothing at all wrong with that quote. A true workers revolution is demcoracy in action. Chavez problem is that he is too undemocratic, not the opposite.
Eh. I think he&#39;s trying to juggle both with being president and letting the people decide on issues. But that just seems to be what&#39;s happening to me honestly. *shrug*

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 01:59 pm
Which means letting the people decide. :rolleyes:
Like that&#39;s anything but words. :rolleyes:

[Zurdito]

Originally posted by SouthernBelle82+December 27, 2007 06:00 pm--> (SouthernBelle82 @ December 27, 2007 06:00 pm)
[email protected] 27, 2007 03:25 pm

“Everyday I become more convinced, there is no doubt in my mind, and as many intellectuals have said, that it is necessary to transcend capitalism. But capitalism can’t be transcended from within capitalism itself, but through socialism, true socialism, with equality and justice. But I’m also convinced that it is possible to do it under democracy, but not in the type of democracy being imposed from Washington."-Hugo Chávez.

I&#39;m no fan of Chavez but there is nothing at all wrong with that quote. A true workers revolution is demcoracy in action. Chavez problem is that he is too undemocratic, not the opposite.
Eh. I think he&#39;s trying to juggle both with being president and letting the people decide on issues. But that just seems to be what&#39;s happening to me honestly. *shrug* [/b]
SouthernBelle, with respect I think you need to look at it from more of a classist perspective. What you are saying is what many American liberals say, and yes, I find it admirable for American citizens to come out in defence of a government who you are told is evil, satan etc., and it&#39;s great that you&#39;ve seen through your governments lies. Welcome to the forum btw. :)

However, a marxist analysis goes beyond that.

Venezuela&#39;s economic system created millions of poor people. By the late 1990&#39;s capitalism in Venezuela, like much of Latin America was in crisis. It hadn&#39;t yet reached a revolution, but it was going that way. Like any other group of people, the Venezuelan ruling class has often large disagreements within its ranks. Some of them wanted to stand up to the USA, to implement protectionism, and to take a "soft" approach with their own workers. Others wanted to follow loyally the USA&#39;s neo-liberal path, and ignore the needs of 95% of the population, and even bankrupt many Venezuelan businesses, just to help the US, and a tiny Venezuelan elite which serves it, keep taking control of the market.

Chavez comes from the first group I mentioned. Like a lot of Venezuelan capitalists, he realised that Venezuela was in a crisis, that a state with such high inequality and so dependent on US interests would not survive long term. So he has gone to all those potential revolutionary workers, and offered them some reforms, to try to get them to stop resisting capitalism.

On the one hand, he has had to stand up to the USA in order to do this. But on the other hand, he also needs to end the threat of revolution in Venezuela, which has been growing for a long time. So he tries to give himself greater power over the media. He tries to use the PSUV to replace independent working class organisation and instead tell workers that their best bet for change is under a rich, corrupt bureaucracy, which cares about them just as little as their old bosses did.

So yes, momentarily Chavez is implementing some positive reforms. But he is not a socialist, he is doing this in order to avoid socialism. Chavez is supported by the army and many Venezuelan capitalists, and he comes from the army himself. Those people do not support socialism, ever, anywhere in the world. Chavez isn&#39;t blanacing "democracy" and the Presidency, he is instead balancing the workers on one hand and the capitalists on the other. But you see, he isn&#39;t really "balancing" them: because at the end of the day, the capitalists are staying rich (and many are getting richer), and the workers are staying poor.

Now, a lot of marxists have a very supportive approach to Chavez. You can argue (I disagree) that long term his actions empower Venezuelan workers, and lead to revolution down the line. However even they admit that at some point, Chavez will try to put a halt to the progress, when it&#39;s gone far enough to avoid the threat of a revolution. And then what will happen? Well, quite possibly the capitalists could then go on the attacl again, stepping up the rate of exploitation, and even using the institutions Chavez created to help them do this. There is a lot of precedent: Gadaffi in Libya uses the same institutions he created to "defend "socialism from the imperialists", to "liberalise" the market, in co-operation with the white House, the EU, and Libyan capitalists. Peron in Argentina did the same: when he was first elected, the US called him a fascist; by the end of his second term, he was selling Argentina&#39;s oil to Americanc ompanies, and implementing austerity measures: all of which was made possible by the fact that Argentina&#39;s workers were now all unionised under his control.

So I think, SouthernBelle, that as marxists we always need to encourage independent working class organisation. At times we can make alliances with certain bourgeois parties or governments, but, always be aware that if we give ourselves over to them, they will turn around and betray us eventually betray us.

[SouthernBelle82]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 06:28 pm
SouthernBelle, with respect I think you need to look at it from more of a classist perspective. What you are saying is what many American liberals say, and yes, I find it admirable for American citizens to come out in defence of a government who you are told is evil, satan etc., and it&#39;s great that you&#39;ve seen through your governments lies. Welcome to the forum btw. :)

However, a marxist analysis goes beyond that.

Venezuela&#39;s economic system created millions of poor people. By the late 1990&#39;s capitalism in Venezuela, like much of Latin America was in crisis. It hadn&#39;t yet reached a revolution, but it was going that way. Like any other group of people, the Venezuelan ruling class has often large disagreements within its ranks. Some of them wanted to stand up to the USA, to implement protectionism, and to take a "soft" approach with their own workers. Others wanted to follow loyally the USA&#39;s neo-liberal path, and ignore the needs of 95% of the population, and even bankrupt many Venezuelan businesses, just to help the US, and a tiny Venezuelan elite which serves it, keep taking control of the market.

Chavez comes from the first group I mentioned. Like a lot of Venezuelan capitalists, he realised that Venezuela was in a crisis, that a state with such high inequality and so dependent on US interests would not survive long term. So he has gone to all those potential revolutionary workers, and offered them some reforms, to try to get them to stop resisting capitalism.

On the one hand, he has had to stand up to the USA in order to do this. But on the other hand, he also needs to end the threat of revolution in Venezuela, which has been growing for a long time. So he tries to give himself greater power over the media. He tries to use the PSUV to replace independent working class organisation and instead tell workers that their best bet for change is under a rich, corrupt bureaucracy, which cares about them just as little as their old bosses did.

So yes, momentarily Chavez is implementing some positive reforms. But he is not a socialist, he is doing this in order to avoid socialism. Chavez is supported by the army and many Venezuelan capitalists, and he comes from the army himself. Those people do not support socialism, ever, anywhere in the world. Chavez isn&#39;t blanacing "democracy" and the Presidency, he is instead balancing the workers on one hand and the capitalists on the other. But you see, he isn&#39;t really "balancing" them: because at the end of the day, the capitalists are staying rich (and many are getting richer), and the workers are staying poor.

Now, a lot of marxists have a very supportive approach to Chavez. You can argue (I disagree) that long term his actions empower Venezuelan workers, and lead to revolution down the line. However even they admit that at some point, Chavez will try to put a halt to the progress, when it&#39;s gone far enough to avoid the threat of a revolution. And then what will happen? Well, quite possibly the capitalists could then go on the attacl again, stepping up the rate of exploitation, and even using the institutions Chavez created to help them do this. There is a lot of precedent: Gadaffi in Libya uses the same institutions he created to "defend "socialism from the imperialists", to "liberalise" the market, in co-operation with the white House, the EU, and Libyan capitalists. Peron in Argentina did the same: when he was first elected, the US called him a fascist; by the end of his second term, he was selling Argentina&#39;s oil to Americanc ompanies, and implementing austerity measures: all of which was made possible by the fact that Argentina&#39;s workers were now all unionised under his control.

So I think, SouthernBelle, that as marxists we always need to encourage independent working class organisation. At times we can make alliances with certain bourgeois parties or governments, but, always be aware that if we give ourselves over to them, they will turn around and betray us eventually betray us.
Oh sure. I totally agree about it being classless. With having caste systems it puts people against each other instead of working towards the common good for everyone, ya know? I believe everyone should be treated equally no matter their money or education or what have you. I don&#39;t see anything Chavez is doing as evil or anything like that. I disagreed with one thing on his recent referendum issues but not evil. Eh I don&#39;t see him as avoiding socialism personally. I can see why you&#39;d see that. Maybe he&#39;s more of a democratic socialist. But I do agree with your last point however because staying independent means you can stay true to yourself and your own goals and you won&#39;t have to do favors or "favors" etc. So I can understand that. Oh and thanks for the welcome. I&#39;ve been here for a little while and am enjoying it here. I get beat up on other boards so to speak so it&#39;s nice to come to a sort of santcuary ya know? I&#39;m still a couple months into socialism so yea. I used to be liberal but it never really felt right and that&#39;s when I did more research on socialism and found myself agreeing with a lot of the policies.

[Zurdito]

Eh I don&#39;t see him as avoiding socialism personally. I can see why you&#39;d see that.

without Chavez, capitalism in Venezuela may have faced a more serious threat. He didn&#39;t invent workers discontent, he just provided an answer. IMO it&#39;s the wrong one, and will lead them to defeat.

[bootleg42]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 02:10 am

Eh I don&#39;t see him as avoiding socialism personally. I can see why you&#39;d see that.

without Chavez, capitalism in Venezuela may have faced a more serious threat. He didn&#39;t invent workers discontent, he just provided an answer. IMO it&#39;s the wrong one, and will lead them to defeat.
Well his government and the state itself does not prove the right answer but Chavez himself has personally given GOOD messages to the workers. When workers take over factories themselves, even when his governors get pissed at it, Chavez cheers it on and pushes for the workers to do more of the same.