Which famous Leftists would be restricted to OI?

[Os Cangaceiros]

I was pondering whom amongst the famous Leftists in history would be restricted on this website. These are some of the ones I came up with:

Vladimir Lenin - For hardcore sexism.

Mikhail Bakunin - For anti-Semitism.

P.J. Proudhon - For his less famous line, "Property is freedom" in "What is Property?"

Joseph Stalin - Because, well, because he's Stalin.

Anyone else?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 11:57 am
P.J. Proudhon - For his less famous line, "Property is freedom" in "What is Property?"
I always thought the line was "Possession is freedom".

Anyway, this is a fact that's always interested me (that revleft's policy would lead to the restriction of some famous "leftists") and I think it illustrates perfectly why liberals are incorrect in their criticising the modern left by bringing up the old left, as we have clearly moved on.

Marx would probably be restricted for racism or banned for getting pissed and going ona flame fest (knowing ol' Karl). Pol Pot would be restricted as a primitivist. Hop Chi Minh would be restricted for nationalism.

[Faux Real]

Seems like Jazz is right. Especially after asserting "property is theft" in the same book.

[Marsella]

Maybe Engels and Marx, for views concerning homosexuality, females and lumpen proletariat scum! :lol:

I mean, for fucks sake, the IWMA supported the re-election of Lincoln! :P

[Os Cangaceiros]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 12:06 pm
Seems like Jazz is right. Especially after asserting "property is theft" in the same book.
It's possible I got the quote wrong.

Proudhon is one of my favorite figures as far as historical figures of the Left goes. But, he probably would be restricted. If not for that particular comment than for some of his anti Semitic ruminations.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 12:11 pm
If not for that particular comment than for some of his anti Semitic ruminations.
Yeah, that and being a sexist. This doesn't mean we should disregard everything he said (far from it) but it does mean he shouldn't be considered above criticism (none of the theorists from the past should, which is something a lot of so called "marxists" on this site should remember [especially a certain member of the Orthodox Church of St.Trotsky].

[hajduk]

Kim Yong Ill

[Ismail]

Hoxha for condemning the admins as revisionist traitors and viewing homosexuality as against womens rights along with having about 800,000 violations of flaming members. :P

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

MArx and engels wouldnt have been restricted for racism because they weren't, unlike bakunin who was an extreme anti semite.

[Sir Aunty Christ]

Probably all of them could be banned for some reason or other.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Wasn't Che a homophobe? I heard somewhere that he was. If so, those reactionary beliefs are going to send him straight to OI purgatory!

I can only imagine the righteous indignation.

"I have to look at my own freakin' face everytime I post on a forum that I'm restricted on!"

[spartan]

Well Fidel Castro had homosexual people sent to concentration camps so that bastard would be restricted if he ever mentioned it.

[R_P_A_S]

you guys all forget these people lived in different times. ease the fuck up on them. i forgot you all are perfect and never said a racist, or homophobic thing since you all were born.

fuck off.

[spartan]

you guys all forget these people lived in different times. ease the fuck up on them. i forgot you all are perfect and never said a racist, or homophobic thing since you all were born.

fuck off.
Lighten up RPAS :D

This thread is only meant as a joke at best and, if anything, shows the stupidness of us on revleft, as we would be more than willing to ban/restrict the people who have defined our various ideologies and movement, just because of some private views of theirs which they happened to have held (Which, as you said, were hardly unique when you consider the times that they lived in).

[R_P_A_S]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 12:06 am

you guys all forget these people lived in different times. ease the fuck up on them. i forgot you all are perfect and never said a racist, or homophobic thing since you all were born.

fuck off.
Lighten up RPAS :D

This thread is only meant as a joke at best and, if anything, shows the stupidness of us on revleft, as we would be more than willing to ban/restrict the people who have defined our various ideologies and movement, just because of some private views of theirs which they happened to have held (Which, as you said, were hardly unique when you consider the times that they lived in).
eh whatever im drunk

[Nusocialist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 12:06 pm
Seems like Jazz is right. Especially after asserting "property is theft" in the same book.
Actually it is was property is freedom and property is impossible alongside the famous property is theft. It was meant to be contradictory to highlight different notions of property.

[Nusocialist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 02:01 pm
MArx and engels wouldnt have been restricted for racism because they weren't, unlike bakunin who was an extreme anti semite.
He was quite friendly with Marx at one time. The accusations against Marx are quite well known and there is often no smoke without fire in these situations.

Engels was a capitalist I believe and Marx lived on this money.

[spartan]

MArx and engels wouldnt have been restricted for racism because they weren't, unlike bakunin who was an extreme anti semite.
Bakunins "anti-Semitism" was directed against Jews who made a living as businessmen (Whom Bakunin thought of as blood suckers of the working class).

It isnt a generalization on Bakunins part either as, unfortunately for many Jews, the only place where they found themselves not to be as discriminated against was in business and Capitalism (Where it didnt really matter what you were as long as you invested into your countries intrests and made a profit for them).

This of course led to Bakunin saying this:

The communism of Marx seeks a strong state centralization, and where this exists, there the parasitic Jewish nation - which speculates upon the labor of people - will always find the means for its existence.
As for Marx, who himself had Jewish ancestory, he used, what we today would deem, quite racist language and terminology when talking about one of his political rivals, Ferdinand Lassalle whom i think was Jewish, at the time when he said this about Lassalle in a letter to a friend:

"... it is now completely clear to me that he, as is proved by his cranial formation and his hair, descends from the Negroes from Egypt, assuming that his mother or grandmother had not interbred with a nigger. Now this union of Judaism and Germanism with a basic Negro substance must produce a peculiar product. The obtrusiveness of the fellow is also nigger-like."
Now when i read this i dont see racism in Marxs comments, rather i see a, less then approving, description of Lassalle, Marxs political rival, whilst using perfectly normal, acceptable and widespread terminology, for back then, in his less than appealing description of Lassalle.

I am afraid that i dont know too much about Engels and racism to make a comment on it.

[Neutrino]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 11:57 pm
you guys all forget these people lived in different times. ease the fuck up on them. i forgot you all are perfect and never said a racist, or homophobic thing since you all were born.

fuck off.
Are you fucking serious? There's a world of difference between "[saying] a racist, or homophobic thing" and interning people because they're gay.

Fine. You're in the 1960s -- be a damn revolutionary and refuse to transcend 40-year-old social mores. But don't actively perpetuate them.

I don't forgive Castro. I don't see why he should be forgiven.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Marx, for his sympathetic attitude toward religion.

[Dros]

Also, Marx was pretty sexist I've heard.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 26, 2007 03:15 pm
Marx, for his sympathetic attitude toward religion.
If this is a dig at anti-religious feeling in the CC it's really quite poor, considering you are a mod.

[R_P_A_S]

Originally posted by Neutrino+December 26, 2007 02:50 pm--> (Neutrino @ December 26, 2007 02:50 pm)
[email protected] 25, 2007 11:57 pm
you guys all forget these people lived in different times. ease the fuck up on them. i forgot you all are perfect and never said a racist, or homophobic thing since you all were born.

fuck off.
Are you fucking serious? There's a world of difference between "[saying] a racist, or homophobic thing" and interning people because they're gay.

Fine. You're in the 1960s -- be a damn revolutionary and refuse to transcend 40-year-old social mores. But don't actively perpetuate them.

I don't forgive Castro. I don't see why he should be forgiven. [/b]
what?
:lol:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Jaz:


If this is a dig at anti-religious feeling in the CC it's really quite poor, considering you are a mod.

Oh dear, I think I hit a nerve... :o

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 26, 2007 08:11 pm
Jaz:


If this is a dig at anti-religious feeling in the CC it's really quite poor, considering you are a mod.

Oh dear, I think I hit a nerve... :o
Well it's a simple statement of fact, we've never once restricted anyone on account of being apologists for religion - evidence of this is the fact you regularly defend religion and you're a mod.

[TC]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 11:57 am
Vladimir Lenin - For hardcore sexism.

Mikhail Bakunin - For anti-Semitism.

P.J. Proudhon - For his less famous line, "Property is freedom" in "What is Property?"
How did lenin have "hardcore sexism"? Proudhon was about a million times more sexist than, really, anyone, and he was also even more anti-semetic than Bakunin and supported slavery. The guy was essentially an anti-state Nazi.


Maybe Engels and Marx, for views concerning homosexuality, females and lumpen proletariat scum! laugh.gif

What views concerning females? Marx and Engels were, arguably even more than Wollstonecraft like the first modern feminists in that they were the first people to identify the form and origin of the patriarchy.

Engel's views of gender relations remain among the most advanced, definitely more so than the average found in this forum, definitely moreso than the average of people claiming to be feminists.


Wasn't Che a homophobe? I heard somewhere that he was.


Yah, thats sort of the way it is about people like Lenin and Stalin and Mao and Castro anyone the bourgeoises don't like, people repeat unsubstantiated claims that they commit various offenses against liberal and left-libertarian sensibilities in an attempt to alienate their natural supporters from them. Its a symptom of groupthink on a society wide scale.

[Luís Henrique]

We cannot judge people from the past by nowadays standards.

Ideas have a material base; the material base of modern emancipation of women lies in cheap contraceptives and welfare systems. In a world where women could not effectively decide whether they wanted to reproduce or not - which means everywhere before WWII - any attempts at their emancipation would fail, and any discourse about such emancipation would easily fall into some kind of paternalism or cynicism.

Luís Henrique

[Dean]

This is something I and many others have pointed out. It is not whether or not you are genuinely interest in leftism - indeed, such people tend to be critical thinkers to the degree that they will openly admit their feelings, and will sometimes be wrong. It depends here on conforming to a liberal, not leftist mentality. It is revolutionary to claim that you must regard men, women, homosexuals, the disabled, for their differences and try to resolve the conflict that exist in regard to those differences. It is reactionary, and liberal in the political sense, to regard those distinctions as irrelevant. Equality should not mean sameness in the political sphere, but there is an errie inclination now for people to think of it in such terms.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Guys, guys, guys....

*shakes head*

This was not exactly intended to be a "serious post". I just wanted to have some fun with historical figures of the Left. If people want to hold them up on an altar and praise them for their divinity (and contrary viewpoints on them as smears of the eevvviill bourgeious), that's fine by me. I could care less.

Tragic Clown: I got the sexist Lenin information from the "Redstar Papers", which I stumbled across while browsing this site.

[Marsella]

What views concerning females?


The standardization of the working day must include the restriction of female labor, insofar as it relates to the duration, intermissions, etc., of the working day; otherwise, it could only mean the exclusion of female labor from branches of industry that are especially unhealthy for the female body, or are objectionable morally for the female sex. If that is what was meant, it should have been said so. Source: Critique of the Gotha Programme (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/append.htm)


Engel's views of gender relations remain among the most advanced, definitely more so than the average found in this forum, definitely moreso than the average of people claiming to be feminists.

Perhaps.

Interestingly enough, I have witnessed quite a bit of sexism from trade union bosses, arguing against the employment of females as it would lower wages. <_<

I think it explained well by Marlene Dixon:


Historically, anti-feminism in the proletariat took the form of attempts to restrict female participation in the labor force. Proletarian anti-feminism was not the result of stubborn sexism alone; it was principally due to the lower wages paid women and the resulting competition between men and women in the labor market. The fundamental cause of the undervalued wages of women is the overall subjugation of women in society in which: 1) women’s share in poorly paid jobs is much greater than that of men (due to institutionalized discrimination) and 2) wages of married women (which are held to be no more than a contribution to their husbands’ earning power) are the most severely undervalued. The undervalued wages of married women put pressure on the wages of unmarried women as well. These factors mean that women’s wages come to have a depressing effect on men’s wages.

Consequently, the female proletariat is caught in a massive contradiction. Women are driven to work by economic necessity, by the operation of capital itself. However, one of the ways for proletarian women to escape the tutelage inherent in the nuclear family is by being drawn into waged labor. Yet, the more women are driven into the labor force, the more their depressed wages put pressure on male wages. The resulting antagonism from male workers manifests itself in demands for the restriction of female labor which replace the earlier demands for the abolition of female labor in the production process. It is basically the same mechanism of depressed wages and the same conflict of material interests which account for the antagonism between white workers and national minority workers.

Historically, then, proletarian women have been defeated by the contradictory nature of their position, by the twofold nature of women’s emancipation under capitalism. While women could emancipate themselves by going out to work, competition at the same time imposed limits on this, emancipation. The historical limits have meant that in periods of prosperity proletarian women’s movements have fought for higher wages and better jobs; in periods of economic crisis women have had to fight to retain the right to work.

The super-exploitation of female labor power by capital can only be countered, in terms of reform, by union organizing and protective legislation. However, historically, the principal opposition to basic reforms (equal pay for equal work and a fair wage for a fair day’s work) has come from the trade unions themselves and from the bourgeois women’s movement. Left-Wing Anti-Feminism: A Revisionist Disorder (http://www.marxists.org/subject/women/authors/dixon-marlene/anti-feminism.htm)

And Bebel also said:


It is truly not a lovely sight to see women, even with child, vying with men in wheeling heavily laden barrows on railway construction sites; or to observe them mixing lime and cement, or carrying heavy loads, or stones, as laborers on building sites, or to see them working at washing coal or ironstone. The women there are stripped of all that is feminine and their femininity is trampled under foot, just as our men, in many different types of employment, are bereft of anything manly.

:o


We cannot judge people from the past by nowadays standards.

Perhaps. But we should critically attack their ideas.

By todays standards, Lenin said some quite sexist garbage.

But when considering the backwardness of Russia it was quite progressive.

Doesn&#39;t excuse those ideas though, does it?

But it might explain them.


Ideas have a material base; the material base of modern emancipation of women lies in cheap contraceptives and welfare systems. In a world where women could not effectively decide whether they wanted to reproduce or not - which means everywhere before WWII - any attempts at their emancipation would fail, and any discourse about such emancipation would easily fall into some kind of paternalism or cynicism.

I suppose then we should ignore the question of working class emancipation altogether since it is likely to fall into some kind of paternalism or cynicism&#33; :lol:

The attack on patriarchy is not really a separate &#39;question&#39; but is tied in with class struggle as a whole. But I suppose we should only have talked about equal rights after the development of cheap contraceptives? :wacko:

[Robert]

I would guess that everyone will sooner or later be banned for saying the wrong thing. It only takes one "mistake," correct? And off you go to the rice paddies.

Reminds me of something. What is it?

I&#39;ll think of it.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 03:22 am
I think it explained well by Marlene Dixon:
Indeed, her points seem quite good.


And Bebel also said:


It is truly not a lovely sight to see women, even with child, vying with men in wheeling heavily laden barrows on railway construction sites; or to observe them mixing lime and cement, or carrying heavy loads, or stones, as laborers on building sites, or to see them working at washing coal or ironstone. The women there are stripped of all that is feminine and their femininity is trampled under foot, just as our men, in many different types of employment, are bereft of anything manly.

Yes, as I pointed before, paternalism or cynicism; in Bebel&#39;s case, paternalism. Cynicism would be to say that there is nothing wrong in exploiting women in activities that are unhealthy or dangerous, as men are already exploited there (kinda, "didn&#39;t you want equality? here&#39;s your equality, brutal alienated labour for both sexes&#33;")


I suppose then we should ignore the question of working class emancipation altogether since it is likely to fall into some kind of paternalism or cynicism&#33; :lol:

Nope; the material basis for working class emancipation is already here, in the development of productive forces by capitalism.

But in the XVIII century, yes, any discussion of working class emancipation would be either paternalistic (as utopian socialist was) or cynical (as bourgeois liberalism).

Besides, I never said that people in the past should have ignored problems that were insoluble within the material constraints of their era. Just that when they addressed them, the result would necessarily have to be unsatisfying in our modern views, and that we must take that into account when evaluating the reasoning of people in the past.


The attack on patriarchy is not really a separate &#39;question&#39; but is tied in with class struggle as a whole. But I suppose we should only have talked about equal rights after the development of cheap contraceptives? :wacko:

No, we should talk about equal rights at any time. But before cheap contraceptives, they would remain something totally abstract, impossible to be effectively upheld in the real world.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

You quote the Critique of the Gotha Programme, but you leave out what Marx is criticising:


Originally posted by Karl Marx
Gotha Programme
"3. Restriction of female labor and prohibition of child labor."The standardization of the working day must include the restriction of female labor, insofar as it relates to the duration, intermissions, etc., of the working day; otherwise, it could only mean the exclusion of female labor from branches of industry that are especially unhealthy for the female body, or are objectionable morally for the female sex. If that is what was meant, it should have been said so.[/b]As it should be easy to see, the Gotha Programme wants the "restriction" of female labour; Marx, perhaps naively, perhaps rhetorically, takes their good intentions for granted, and explains what kind of "restrictions" to female labour would be in the interest of the working class. And, of course, special duration and intermissions for female labour are in the interest of the working class, as is the exclusion of women from branches of industry that are "especially unhealthy for the female body", if any. But I guess your beef is with the "objectionable morally for the female sex" part, isn't it? In this case, I would agree with you that Marx is wrong; in what we differ is that I think Marx could not have been right about this, considering the limitations of his time.

Luís Henrique

[luxemburg89]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 11:57 pm
you guys all forget these people lived in different times. ease the fuck up on them. i forgot you all are perfect and never said a racist, or homophobic thing since you all were born.

fuck off.
Actually most of us probably didn&#39;t. We are not criticising everything Marx or Lenin ever said only certain things. Was that &#39;fuck off&#39; directed at everyone in this thread? Because quite a few of us have posted so revleft would be somewhat depleted if we all went, how about you just don&#39;t read threads that get you slightly uppety and spend some time trying to discover your sense of humour? :wub:

[Forward Union]

Gerrard Winstanley for his anti-alcohol stance, and religious overtones.

Pancho Villa for racism

Wat Tyler, for his royalism

Makhno, For Sectarianism

Max Stirner for beign a total fuckcake

Kropotkin for his sexism,

Most of these (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9L3zV-T5fI)

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by Robert the [email protected] 27, 2007 03:51 am
I would guess that everyone will sooner or later be banned for saying the wrong thing. It only takes one "mistake," correct? And off you go to the rice paddies.

Reminds me of something. What is it?

I&#39;ll think of it.
Revleft is serious bussiness.

[Faux Real]

Originally posted by Wat [email protected] 27, 2007 03:45 pm
Makhno, For Sectarianism
We have tons of unrestricted sectarians. Fail&#33;

[The Gulag]

Eugene V. Debs - Attempting to call of the Pullman Strike

Abraham Lincoln - Going to the theater when honest men ere out working there butts off fighting the slave holders and splitting rails. That tart.

[Juche96]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 01:44 pm
Kim Yong Ill
What is that supposed to mean? You need to defend your opinion before you attack a revolutionary leader.
This goes for everyone in the forum. Please don&#39;t accuse someone of sexism or homophobia for example, without supplying a quotation.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Juche96+December 28, 2007 07:37 pm--> (Juche96 @ December 28, 2007 07:37 pm)
[email protected] 25, 2007 01:44 pm
Kim Yong Ill
What is that supposed to mean? You need to defend your opinion before you attack a revolutionary leader. [/b]
I think it means that many of the policies that Kim Jong Il supports, has enacted and has written in favour of make him a likely candidate for restriction this site. I would be inclined to agree with this.


This goes for everyone in the forum. Please don&#39;t accuse someone of sexism or homophobia for example, without supplying a quotation.

Have you noticed that a lot of what has been written here is either common knowledge to most members of the forum (Proudhon&#39;s sexism & Bakunin&#39;s Anti-Semitism for example) which has been discussed ad nauseum or else has been proven (or at least had weight lent to it) in this very thread, with lengthy quotations and interpretations.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 02:04 pm
Anyway, this is a fact that&#39;s always interested me (that revleft&#39;s policy would lead to the restriction of some famous "leftists") and I think it illustrates perfectly why liberals are incorrect in their criticising the modern left by bringing up the old left, as we have clearly moved on.
Alternatively, it may be an indication that the restriction policy is too, well, too restrictive.

I mean, the purpose of restricting someone is supposedly to ensure that their reactionary opinions do not derail discussions between leftists. But one could hardly argue that the presence of Lenin or Proudhon or Bakunin or Ho Chi Minh or Marx himself would be unwanted in the Politics or Theory forums because of their various reactionary opinions on this or that individual issue.

If it is possible for Bakunin to be an anti-Semite but still make valid arguments and useful contributions to leftism, then why isn&#39;t it equally possible for a revleft poster with one or two reactionary opinions to make equally valid arguments and useful contributions to leftist discussion?

[The Feral Underclass]

Karl Marx.

[RebelDog]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 29, 2007 11:04 am
Karl Marx.
Engels as well then.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by Edric O+December 29, 2007 03:10 am--> (Edric O @ December 29, 2007 03:10 am)
[email protected] 25, 2007 02:04 pm
Anyway, this is a fact that&#39;s always interested me (that revleft&#39;s policy would lead to the restriction of some famous "leftists") and I think it illustrates perfectly why liberals are incorrect in their criticising the modern left by bringing up the old left, as we have clearly moved on.
Alternatively, it may be an indication that the restriction policy is too, well, too restrictive. [/b]
I think there is a mix of the two factors.

Antisemitism is totally unacceptable, as is the view that women should be kept at home to keep care of children and so that they would not lower the average wages.

There are material facts regarding this, namely the holocaust and the invention of cheap contraceptives.

The same case, I think, goes for radical homophobes (ie, people who believe gays and lesbians should be suppressed or repressed); the same reason applies: the new fact that is an organised gay rights movement.

I think it is possible to tolerate, to a certain extent, mild homophobes (ie, people who think that gays and lesbians should have the same rights than heterosexuals, but think that gay rights movements are a distraction from the really important struggle, or who hope that socialism/communism will in the future make homosexuality fade out, or who tell silly jokes about homosexuals).

Even at Marx&#39;s time, racism against blacks was unacceptable in the left, and Marx himself gave the reason: "white" labour can never be free while "black" labour is enslaved. The fact that the same man who established this principle made private anti-Black racist comments concerning Lassalle should make us think a little. People are not monolithes, they are (sorry, Rosa) contradictory. And that would, in my opinion, mean that while people who were effectively racist (ie, those who actually believed Black men should remain esnlaved) should have been restricted/banned in a hypothetical XIX century revleft board, while people who just followed the mores of the time and used terms as "nigger" or used "Black" as a derogatory term, or told jokes about Blacks, could be tolerated (in the XIX century, I mean).

On the other hand, we certainly overreact here. Our policies are sometimes silly, sometimes excessively rigid, sometimes contradictory, tolerating some abuse by "popular" posters but not from newbies or "lonesome cowboys". But usually the problem is not in the rules, but in some people who make strong pressure to change them or even to restrict/ban/kick from the CC with no base in the rules.

Often people come with concepts that are foolish and unacceptable extensions of valid anti-discriminatory stance. (in)Famously:

- if homosexuality is a sexual orientation and we are against discrimination of homosexuals, we should be against discrimination of zoophiles (necrophiles, paedophiles, [insert here you preferred distastable paraphyllia]) as those are also sexual orientations;

- if we are against discrimination of Blacks, Jews, Native Americans, Arabs, we should also be against "discrimination" of animals;

- "discrimination" of children/teenagers is of the same nature and degree (if not worse) than race or gender discrimination.

- "discrimination" against mentally ill people (including victims of chemical dependence), or even against ill people in general, is of the same nature and degree than race or gender discrimination (sometimes seeming to imply some "right" to be ill).

Less notoriously, ideas that discrimination against fat people, slim people, bald people, left-handed people, etc, has the same or a similar importance than race or gender discrimination.

On the other hand, we seem to underreact to religious discrimination, particularly when veiled in "anti-theist" arguments (people who make prejudiced, slanderous, even genocidal, remarks against Islam but not against Christianity, but hide under the idea that all religions are reactionary). In this regard, on the other hand, Judaism enjoys a somehow privileged position here, contradictorily because it relies in the reactionary belief that ideas are hereditary.

Luís Henrique

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by comrade in [email protected] 28, 2007 12:20 am
We have tons of unrestricted sectarians. Fail&#33;
Yes but they didn&#39;t execute as many bolsheviks&#33;

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by Wat [email protected] 30, 2007 12:39 pm
Yes but they didn&#39;t execute as many bolsheviks&#33;
Nobody executed as many bolsheviks as Stalin.

Luís Henrique

[Holden Caulfield]

Leon Trotsky for having no friends,

[RGacky3]

All Liberation theologists, which includes many latin American priests killed for supporting and helping revolutionary groups.

definately Leo Tolstoy.

definately Eugene V. Debs

Both were christians.


We cannot judge people from the past by nowadays standards

Why not, principles don't change?

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Karl Marx.
TAT.

[Tower of Bebel]

Karl Kautsky :D by request of Lenin and Rosa through the Commie Club.

[chimx]

What about freakazoid. He was openly religious and even rejected evolution. He was restricted despite the fact that he didn't try to convert anybody. There has been a few others.

[Comrade Rage]

What about freakazoid. He was openly religious and even rejected evolution. He was restricted despite the fact that he didn't try to convert anybody. There has been a few others.Freakazoid was a famous leftist?:eek:

[Luís Henrique]

Freakazoid was a famous leftist?:eek:

An infamous one, at least?

Luís Henrique

[chimx]

Freakazoid was a famous leftist?:eek:

Heh, no. That was a response to Jazzratt.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hey, Chimx -- good to see you back!:)

[Jazzratt]

What about freakazoid. He was openly religious and even rejected evolution. He was restricted despite the fact that he didn't try to convert anybody. There has been a few others.

Except Freakazoid wasn't restricted for his religious views, it was his statements on abortion and the fact he identified as "fundamentalist" - which is much more reactionary than vanilla religion.

[NorthStarRepublicML]

which is much more reactionary than vanilla religion.care to define "vanilla religion" for us Jazz?


On the other hand, we certainly overreact here. Our policies are sometimes silly, sometimes excessively rigid, sometimes contradictory, tolerating some abuse by "popular" posters but not from newbies or "lonesome cowboys". But usually the problem is not in the rules, but in some people who make strong pressure to change them or even to restrict/ban/kick from the CC with no base in the rules.i appreciate this analysis Luis, i think we can all agree that the rules are not the problem, but there are certain instances where they are applied with a great deal of bias and selectivity ...

as for the topic of the thread, concerning what famous leftists would be restricted ... i think a more appropriate question is what famous leftists would not be restricted ... we can see from the posts that the big ones ... marx, engels, lenin, mao, stalin, bakunin, castro, guevara ... would certainly be restricted ....

but who would be a member in good standing? who is neither racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-choice, religious, and not a dictator? ....

hmmmmm......

the only ones that come to mind are western academics and intellectuals (Noam Chomsky or Naomi Klein come to mind).. and we all know how well they have done in advancing leftist politics (sarcasm)....

my point is not that that these famous leftists, who would be restricted in this super star version of revleft, are superior to the Chomsky's and Klein's ....

well actually that is exactly what i am saying ...

[Jazzratt]

care to define "vanilla religion" for us Jazz?

Since you asked so politely....

Vanilla religion is what most average people practice - they might believe in some kind of sky fairy or whatever but they've managed to evolve beyond a literal reading of their gruesome slasher novels. Vanilla Islam for example is the religion practised by those who don't advocate lashing women 100 times for adultery.

[w0lf]

All Liberation theologists, which includes many latin American priests killed for supporting and helping revolutionary groups.

definately Leo Tolstoy.

definately Eugene V. Debs

Both were christians.



Why not, principles don't change?

Tolstoy was an anarchist also. Someone has to have the same religion ideology as everyone else?

[INDK]

On all comments on "anti-Semitism" here for several famous Leftists:

All of these accusations are in a way incorrect, and yet are correct (as these theorists committed a discrimination at the same time). These were contextual criticisms made by these various people, including Marx, Bakunin, and Proudhon, contextual in the sense that they criticised Jewish people not as Jews but as petit-bourgeoisie. Discrimination, because not all Jews are petit-bourgeoisie. Just an observation.