My Perception of Revisionism

[FireFry]

Revisionism, as I see it, is capitalist perversion of communist ideas. Where they repeatedly nose into the Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital and offer us watered down, abridged books of ideas full of holes, instead of the real idea.

I ran into this problem as I was looking for the original edition of the communist manifesto : It doesn't exist. Every publisher always takes something out. This idea isn't unique to communists, it's unique to literature everywhere. Original works are more rare than ever!!

Feminists attack books, Nazis attack books, Gays attack books, Christians they all attack books. And now, Capitalists attack books they don't like. They're all willing to take that torch and make a bonfire of original ideas and send them all "to hell".

Any questions?

http://giaha.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/6a00c225290bfe604a00d41432c046685e-500pi2.jpg

[Die Neue Zeit]

The funny thing is that I haven't read much of the Manifesto or State and Revolution, and yet for some reason I grasp a lot more concepts than I am expected to.

HINT: I skip to more critical but more obscure works, such as the one in my signature. ;)

[FireFry]

What I mean is, the original works, of Mein Kempft or the Communist Manifesto are so emotionally charged, so philosophically synthesised, that you have no choice but to follow!!

But this, emotion, these ideas, are watered down with revision and active bourgois repression. Things get erased all the time from computers, and nobody notices. We don't need fire anymore!! I really do think that a society, much like Ray Bradbury's, is likely in the near future if not the present.

It's not that books are burned, but they don't exist in their classic form anymore. Books aren't bounded, anymore, they aren't properly cared for and respected as symbols of our ideas. Certainly, Libraries help increase literacy, but they increase the cultural awareness of our people? Does it make them feel human again ??

No, they don't. Books make you feel more and more inhuman, alienating man from man, girl from girl with bizarre fantasies of stupidity and capitalist adventures. Forcing you to believe, that is the normal. Don't eat that shit, in fact, don't eat shit, period.

Bite back.

[FireFry]

There's also a language barrier between our society and Prussian society (the various germanic states east of France) that prevents us from partaking in these societies and watching their social movements with ire. The only social movements that we in the New World can witness are, of course, South American and Carribean ones.

What we in our society are experiencing is an influx of documents, from countries with different societies presently. There is no such thing as "the Red Menace" there is only different competing societies with competing leaders and groups within and without these countries. What most communists fail to realise is, being a communist is the life of a nomad. Moving from place to place, edging people forward and showing them the distinctions in societies, preventing a class of capitalists from coming or operating.

In many ways, we're like the Prussians after the French Revolution, we get these documents in, about socialism in France. Instead, replace France with Cuba or Venezuela, and then you have us today, following maps for a region we're not in.

Do you understand, now? It's only with humanism and passionate familial relationships that communism, revolts within a people, are possible. Consider Scotland's Braveheart for example, he died, tortured, in an attempt of revolution. Of course, this revolution was a savage one, savage revolutions never work. It takes cultured, civilised revolutions for a society to advance to communism. It takes the ability of the proletariat to forgive and treatise after battles have been won, but are we civil enough to do that?

In some places, yes, in others, the more politically passionate of the provinces of this planet, no. What I'm trying to say is, when unperverted democracy exists, democracy not perverted by television or media, then democracy is possible, that battle has been won. There are personal battles too that need to be won, between obligations of an individual (to work, to family or to politics, or all three..?).

Of course, sometimes the media is an organ of the bourgois, sometimes that ain't so. In the case of CNN, today. It varies with the economic climate of the times. Recessions of the capital economy do wonders for class awareness. Communism is the political phallus that everybody's afraid of.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

The funny thing is that I haven't read much of the Manifesto or State and Revolution, and yet for some reason I grasp a lot more concepts than I am expected to.

HINT: I skip to more critical but more obscure works, such as the one in my signature. ;)

I find that interesting, considering I have read them all [I have read all of Lenin's work]. I would have expected a Leninist to have read state and revolution all the way through- but I will say that along with the Communist Manifesto, they are probably some of the easier reads and comrades should definitely not stop there.

It always has angered me how many bourgeois publishing companies edit marxist texts and sell them under their name. I hate the way they modernize words and replace phrases. They are overpriced and irritating to read. Most of all, I hate the introductions which are often written by reactionary authors. I, however, prefer Progress Publishers. Soviet texts are the best.

[RNK]

Communist Manifesto are so emotionally charged

I can only conclude you have never read the communist manifesto, as it is one of the most boring, emotionally-voided pieces of literature ever devised by the mind of man.

[Random Precision]

I find that as well, Nadezhda. I have the three volume Selected Works from Progress Publishers, which includes all of his important theoretical work. It's rather annoying, though, to look up people in the biographical index to find that they were hopeless factionalists who had to be purged by the Party, despite its many attempts to reason with them, or some shit like that.

[Led Zeppelin]

I find that interesting, considering I have read them all [I have read all of Lenin's work].

That is hilarious.

I just read your post in the other thread about bourgeois democracy, saying that communists should never participate in it....yeah, you've read everything by Lenin all right.

Be serious please.

[RNK]

Reading does not equate to agreeing with. Unless, of course, you agree with whatever you read. In which case...

[Led Zeppelin]

Reading does not equate to agreeing with. Unless, of course, you agree with whatever you read. In which case...

Given the fact that she considers herself to be an "Orthodox Leninist", it is not so strange to believe that she agrees with all of Lenin's positions on theoretical matters, especially when they are based on logical argument, such as the issue of participating in bourgeois democracy.

But even diregarding that, believing that she has read all of Lenin's works is absurd.

[FireFry]

Before I go any further with this discussion, I'd like to tell you what inspired this post. Google.com, you see, on google, I've been incapable of finding any of Marx's original texts, they have an abridged edition of Capital, that's available for reading (but only certain sections!) and they've removed various Videos of the Cuban Healthcare system from their google video service.

Comrades, google is not on the side of the proletarian or free information, they are on the side of bourg monopolists and catologueists. They provide a service to other bourgois owned companies that's restricted for the lay man. It's simply unacceptable for them to dealing out half-assed services like this, the same way it's unacceptable for AT&T, Microsoft and any other giant to dominate the telecom industry. Of course, with Google, nothing they crawl is ever shown! Even though they've crawled everything, twice over!!

Google actively censors, causing user frustration, even unconsciously (which is the most dangerous place for frustration to come from).

Also, an orthodox leninist is just about as stupid as an orthodox republican. Slowly, communism will make it's re-emergence in the west as a practical alternative to capitalism, and it will not be seen as epic or silly or tragic or fearful but just ANOTHER THING.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Doesn't Marxists.org have an unabridged version? :confused:

[And watch your sectarian mouth regarding "stupid orthodox Leninists" there, bud. :glare: ]

[FireFry]

Doesn't Marxists.org have an unabridged version?

I don't know, but it's not the version I read. Was it Marx that said we needed another classic epic of the times, like Dante, to guide the way towards a different era? And was that in the Communist Manifesto. I remember reading that somewhere on the internet, but I dont remember where.

[FireFry]

I also have a theory that Engels poisoned Marx slowly because he was jealous, then completely rewrote many of his works. Engels was financially well off when Marx died and lived in luxury into the turn of the 20th century. I wouldn't be surprised if Beethoven's or Shakespeare's works were changed when they died!

I mean, the serious, 1848 original translation of it. The one written during the heat of the Year of Revolution in Europe.

[FireFry]

[And watch your sectarian mouth regarding "stupid orthodox Leninists" there, bud. ]

I agree with Redstar, lenin is dead, he's long long overdue for a burial. Nobody remembers but they didn't start calling themselves Leninists until Stalin arrived! Before they all called themselves BOLSHEVIKS.

If you call yourself a bolshevik, that's fine with me. But don't call yourself a leninist.

[Led Zeppelin]

Actually they called themselves Marxists, in terms of ideology. Bolshevik was their party affiliation.

[Marsella]

I also have a theory that Engels poisoned Marx slowly because he was jealous, then completely rewrote many of his works. Engels was financially well off when Marx died and lived in luxury into the turn of the 20th century. I wouldn't be surprised if Beethoven's or Shakespeare's works were changed when they died!

I mean, the serious, 1848 original translation of it. The one written during the heat of the Year of Revolution in Europe.

That's a baseless 'theory.'

Engels was well off because he inherited wealth from his family.

And anyway, Engels died in 1895.

Not into the 'turn of the 20th century.'

[FireFry]

Engels was well off because he inherited wealth from his family.

That makes him BOURGOIS.


Engels died in 1895.

Wrong, he died in 1905 in the Countryside of London, retired and well off. We see a repeated pattern, especially with Beethoven, where genius is exploited by capital then cast aside as useless rubbish. We saw this with Einstein, we see it with Marx (his relationship with Engels), we see it with any genius that emerges. They are murdered for capital gains. People in savage societies can live up to 120 years if they live up to the non-industrialist lifestyle of good health and excercise, of course, capitalist operated society is a lot darker and less safe than you'd ever thought the TV told you.

[FireFry]

When I mean, darker of course, I mean psychologically darker. People tend to blink less in capitalism. Creating a mental operation where only negative spaces are realised, not positive ones. If we invert colors on this page. Where the text is white and the drop is black, things will seem far more twisted .... but at least honest!

Look at the way this guy (http://maddox.xmission.com/) does it, it seems to work for him!

[Led Zeppelin]

Erm, Engels died on August 5th, 1895: link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Engels)

[Marsella]

That makes him BOURGOIS.

No, it makes him bourgeoisie.



Wrong, he died in 1905 in the Countryside of London, retired and well off.

Where's your source for that?

I mean, I never heard Engels say anything about the 1905 Russian 'revolution.'

Do you think he would of written something about that pretty important event?

[Marsella]

We see a repeated pattern, especially with Beethoven, where genius is exploited by capital then cast aside as useless rubbish. We saw this with Einstein, we see it with Marx (his relationship with Engels), we see it with any genius that emerges. They are murdered for capital gains.

What rubbish.

As critical as I am of some of Engels' writitings, there is no historical evidence to suggest he murderered Marx (!) or exploited Marx of his genius.

If anything, Marx 'leeched' off Engels.

[Ismail]

I also have a theory that Engels poisoned Marx slowly because he was jealous, then completely rewrote many of his works.Yeah, Engels killed his lifetime partner and delivered a grave eulogy and everything because he was jealous of him. I guess an evil satanic influence (read: dialectics) caused him to do it. :laugh:


We see a repeated pattern, especially with Beethoven, where genius is exploited by capital then cast aside as useless rubbish. We saw this with Einstein, we see it with Marx (his relationship with Engels), we see it with any genius that emerges. They are murdered for capital gains.A. Neither Beethoven nor Einstein advocated proletarian revolution. (Beethoven couldn't since he died in 1827)
B. Marx wasn't exploited by anyone. Engels didn't steal his work and claim it as his own, did he? If Marx was exploited by this Evil Dialectical Conspiracy™ then we'd see stuff like, you know, him moderating his views overtime and toning down the "overthrow the bourgeois" rhetoric after being pushed to do so by his masters.
C. Engels clearly stated various times that force was to be used to overthrow the bourgeois, and not parliamentary means. He also condemned those who wanted to allow religion in the leadership of the social-democratic parties of his time. You'd think a massive moderation effort would be taken, but the opposite actually happened.

[Marsella]

Marx wasn't exploited by anyone.

Damn straight he was.


Engels clearly stated various times that force was to be used to overthrow the bourgeois, and not parliamentary means.

Funny...

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/ch07.htm

[Luís Henrique]

I also have a theory that Engels poisoned Marx slowly because he was jealous, then completely rewrote many of his works. Engels was financially well off when Marx died and lived in luxury into the turn of the 20th century. I wouldn't be surprised if Beethoven's or Shakespeare's works were changed when they died!

Seek help. You really need it.

Luís Henrique

[FireFry]

August 5th 1895

Heh... Strangely enough, that's my birthday. Of course, only 100 years earlier or so.

[Dros]

Feminists attack books, Nazis attack books, Gays attack books, Christians they all attack books. And now, Capitalists attack books they don't like.

:mad:

Did he just compare gays to nazis and capitalists?

Ban...

[FireFry]

Yeah, Engels killed his lifetime partner and delivered a grave eulogy and everything because he was jealous of him. I guess an evil satanic influence (read: dialectics) caused him to do it.

I'm not saying that Hegel was involved, I'm saying that Engels' capitalist background was involved as well as his strained relationship with his father, this culminated in Engels poisoning Marx when he mailed him his finances from Germany. Either through disease, that is, Germany was probably extremely filthy then, or through conscious action where engels had laced the money he had sent to Marx.

Engels was the joint-proprietor of a textile firm, who didn't work, yet leeched off of Marx for the last 20 years of his life.

From wikipedia :


Once Engels made it to England, he decided to re-enter the commercial firm where his father held shares in order to help support Marx with his publications. He hated this work intensely but knew that his friend needed the support. [13][14] He started off as an office clerk, the same position he held in his teens, but eventually worked his way up to become a joint proprietor in 1864.

Even re-reading the versions where Engels has added crap to the Manifesto he adds parts like "if only Marx were here to see this now.." because, guess what, that type of stuff SELLS. Guess who made that huge monument in Marx's name at Highgate Cemetary? Engels. Seriously, that thing is embroidered in gold.

This is classic behavior of a suffering oedipal, once the father figure is dead he is worshipped beyond the grave through primitive statues and figurines. That's what Castro did when Che died. Che was his father figure.

Of course, that discussion belongs to my other topic, Psychological Failings of Capitalism.

[FireFry]

Did he just compare gays to nazis and capitalists?


No, no, no. That's not what I said!!! I said all political parties have the same traits, they ban information they don't like!! It takes serious political activism to finally have all parties discussing on a fair playing field. That means, when communism puts discussion down, we fight that. When capitalism puts discussion down, we fight that too! When discussion is repressed, we fight that, because we want the maximal understanding of the interests of both parties. When gays put down discussion and literature, we fight that too!! People should have an opportunity to see, from anyone's perspective, through literature, what eachothers' personal experiences are!!

We know what the interests of the gay parties are, and communists support those goals, but some gays are capitalists, and so, they shouldn't be supported. By the way, what's so great that sets gay society apart from straight society? They should struggle and toil like the rest of us!

When interests put free speech down, that's a repression of free speech, no matter what. We should beat them in democracy, we shouldn't beat them through savage repression and physical force. If a proletarian movement is popular, what can capitalists do? Not much, but hide! :redstar2000:

A communist movement should be as liberal as possible, liberal for only the proletariat.

[Marsella]

I'm not saying that Hegel was involved, I'm saying that Engels' capitalist background was involved as well as his strained relationship with his father, this culminated in Engels poisoning Marx when he mailed him his finances from Germany. Either through disease, that is, Germany was probably extremely filthy then, or through conscious action where engels had laced the money he had sent to Marx.


Engels did not poison Marx!

In bold so that you can read it: Engels did not poison Marx.

Marx developed a catarrh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catarrh) that kept him in ill health for the last fifteen months of his life. It eventually brought on the bronchitis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronchitis) and pleurisy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleurisy) that killed him in London (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London) on March 14 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_14), 1883 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1883): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx#Death_and_legacy

Unless you can provide evidence that Engels did poison Marx, you should reject it as nonsense - that is the Marxist stance to take.

(And MrDie was obviously being sarcastic)


Engels was the joint-proprietor of a textile firm, who didn't work, yet leeched off of Marx for the last 20 years of his life.

Engels did not leach off Marx.

[FireFry]

Marxist stance to take

Uh huh, well, if I was Marx, I'd certainly like to recieve medical care if I was sick! So I guess you could say, I'm taking Marx's stance, not a Marxist stance :laugh:

[FireFry]

Engels did not leach off Marx.

Fiscally, you're right about that too, he leeched off of his laborers. However, intellectually, it's surprisingly incredible that the two arrived at the same synthesised theories at the same time when they met.

Engels agreed with Marx, Marx didn't agree with Engels. I'm not saying there was a disagreement, but I'm saying that Engels met him, heard his ideas and went... "Hmm... you may have a point there.." because he had serious daddy issues and was an active oedipal all his life, which is tragic. Engels, much like those around Einstein the coming century, understood the fundamentals, but didn't understand the application of Marx's theory. Einstein too has a cult of personality built around him by those who taught, something distinct to oedipals.

But that discussion belongs in another thread.

[Marsella]

Uh huh, well, if I was Marx, I'd certainly like to recieve medical care if I was sick! So I guess you could say, I'm taking Marx's stance, not a Marxist stance :laugh:

What the fuck are you blithering about? I asked for evidence. If you cannot provide anything but mere speculation then you should drop it, like most tin-foil hat conspiracies.

[FireFry]

I asked for evidence.

Find a detective or a P.I. who's willing to listen. I don't have time to research again how Marx spent the last 20 years of his life after Engels joined capital society like his father. But I do remember he died almost broke with Engels mailing him small banknotes regularly to Britain and his wife pawned kitchenware for cash. Certainly, repression had a role in his death, but again, so did Engel's apathy towards his good friend.

And again, tin-foil didn't exist in Marx's time. It's only speculation and serious focus here on Marx's life. Marx didn't recieve professional medical care. It's almost outrageous that somebody in 1880 should die of a cold. But, I guess, living in Industrialising London, anything is possible in such an atmosphere of chaos and business.

[Ismail]

Funny...

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/ch07.htmEngels said that the bourgeois would be overthrown by struggle, not parliamentary means; as in during the revolution. Lenin was talking about before the revolution and was condemning those who refused to enter parliaments as a way of flaunting their ideological purity.

[Dros]

By the way, what's so great that sets gay society apart from straight society? They should struggle and toil like the rest of us!

You just keep digging yourself into this hole of yours...


We should beat them in democracy, we shouldn't beat them through savage repression and physical force. If a proletarian movement is popular, what can capitalists do? Not much, but hide!

Reformist much? This argument is so silly and idealistic and has been dealt with so often it's hard to count...


A communist movement should be as liberal as possible, liberal for only the proletariat.

:lol::lol::lol:

Look up the meaning of the word "liberal".

[Ismail]

A communist movement should be as liberal as possible, liberal for only the proletariat."The emancipation of women in Albania is not a 'feminist movement' as in the capitalist countries, but is the advance of the women to a high level, to full equality with men, the march of women hand in hand with their menfolk in harmony of feelings, aims, and pure ideals, the march towards communism." - An Outline of the Socialist People's Republic of Albania (1978)

Do you understand what this means? Or nay.

[FireFry]

Yeah, I understand what you mean. But what I want to say to you is that you don't know what you're really doing when you ban books that you personally disagree with.

[Ismail]

Pretty much all of the banned books in the USSR in the 30's, 40's, and 50's were banned for a good reason like Mein Kampf. No reason for anyone to read that without backup. (So they do not find Fascism appealing)

[FireFry]

appealing

What a fascinating response. It shows how much sex subconsciously intermingles with political discussion. In many ways, people fine political ideologies to replace their mother and their father figures. That's what I mean, you don't know what you're doing!! We need to stop this fast.

For example, Ann Coulter, she never really had a strong and loving father, so she found the conservative movement and joined that for personal guidance. The same could be said for Adolf Hitler.

[FireFry]

Reformist much? This argument is so silly and idealistic and has been dealt with so often it's hard to count...

Well, if a humanist movement grows and divides in an ecological manner, then it's possible that it can evolve too!!

[Ismail]

In many ways, people fine political ideologies to replace their mother and their father figures. That's what I mean, you don't know what you're doing!! We need to stop this fast.That makes no sense. One finds political ideologies appealing either because their condition is less than stellar and they want change or they consider the current system inferior. If someone is content, they either support the government in a status-quo way or are apathetic.

Sure, bad family experiences can lead one to move towards Fascism, but it could also make one move towards anarchism in the same way. Under socialism (and Communism for that matter) however there is no poverty, which is where most of the issues with families come from.

[Random Precision]

The funny thing is that I haven't read much of the Manifesto or State and Revolution, and yet for some reason I grasp a lot more concepts than I am expected to.

Indeed. If you had read The State and Revolution, I doubt you would still call yourself an "Erfrurtian Leninist".

[S R]

I can only conclude you have never read the communist manifesto, as it is one of the most boring, emotionally-voided pieces of literature ever devised by the mind of man.

I disagree, along with the former opinion that The Communist Manifesto is "emotionally charged."I started reading The Communist Manifesto because I wanted to know what Marx and Engels had to say. At first it seemed boring, but it was also hard to understand what I was reading. It was after a few reads and following up on questions that I began to realize that The Communist Manifesto was not about organizing people on the basis of their emotions [like the nazis and the fascists often do] but about organizing people on the basis of scientific truth. It was then that The Communist Manifesto was neither emotionally charged, or boring, but an exciting scientific advancement for the working class to come to power and emancipate themselves.