An Open Letter to the RevolutionaryLeft Community

[LSD]

I've been posting on this board since January of 2004, that's over four years now. I've been an administrator for two. In that time, I've managed to post well over 7,000 posts, many of them rather long. Indeed, I think I've gotten something of a reputation for posting very long drawn out posts. So I suppose it's fitting that this is going to be a really long one.

I'd ask you to bear through it, though, 'cause after reading it, you may well want to reconsider my status on this site. For my part, I still enjoy posting, but I'm not sure that you will want me around after you read the following.

So here goes.

A few days ago, CyM invited me to a Trotskyist meeting here in Montreal. I had nothing better to do so I came along and observed, and it's been eating at me ever since. I think it might well be the single most disturbing moment of my entire life.

'Cause sitting in that crowded dusty little office, full of books no one wants to read and articles by authors no one's ever heard of, I was struck by the abject pointlessness of it all.

The subject of the meeting was environmentalism, and after a rather long and droning speech by the moderator about how capitalism is bad and socialism is good, the "list" was brought out and each member got a chance to put their name forward to make a comment. And they all spoke in grandiose terms about the "revolution" and the "proletariat" and how nothing could be solved until we "overthrow" capitalism.... and then we broke for beers.

And that, my friends, is the revolutionary vanguard of the proletariat. A bunch of lonlely deluded idealists sitting around in a backroom dreaming Russian dreams that died seventy years ago.

After the beers, though, there were some personal problems that emerged. Seems that some of the members didn't like other members and blah blah blah, and someone said something that someone else thought could be sexist. And so so CyM took him outside and explained to him about "comradeship" and how when we're all fighting in the revolution, we have to trust each other.

And I just stood there listening. And I agreed with everything he said about sexism (the guy was a real jackoff), but this concept, "fighting in the revolution", it just kept banging around my head until I realized that he really believes that in the forseeable future the "proletariat" are going to "rise up" and establish a "workers state". And in that same moment I realized that I didn't.

I don't know what the future holds, but I do know that history does not move in circles. The age of street revolutions, in the first world at least, is over. This cannot be the "end of history", but neither is this 1929 redux.

Before I got home, CyM and I hung out for a while and watched a movie, and talked a bit (mostly he talked, and I stared blankly). And he talked about entryism and the Militant and he made a lot of reasonable points, within the paradigm.

When I got home, I was in a state of some confusion and, looking for answers, I turned his party's page and there, on the IMT webpage, I saw this analysis of Barack Obama's US Presidential campaign (http://www.marxist.com/usa/barack-obama.htm) and it all crystalized for me.

In this article, the IMT provides, albeit somewhat snarkily, a reasonable condensation of Obama's positions. Now their conclusion, of course, was that Obama was a "just anothoer bourgeois politician" and that his politics were ipso facto indistinguishable from those of George W. Bush.

Except they had just spent twelve good paragraphs outlining how they were exactly not like George W. Bush's. So I was somewhat flumoxed as to just what it was that these folks were trying to pursuade me towards. And then it hit me, they don't know know.

The tone of the article was so propagandistic and rhetorical, and yet there was no content to it, no actual point other than vague allusions to the "working class" and "crises" of some vague hypothetical imagining. And it occured to me that these people have been writing this article, this very same damn article, for almost a hundred years now. Every year, in some little Trotksyist rag that no one reads, an article about how we need a "working class party" and the "revolution" is just on the horizon.

There is something so comically tragic about it. I've been going through some changes in my life, reconsidering some of my paradigms and preconceptions, and the one thing I'm realizing is that the older I get, the less I'm certain of. The fact is, the world is an incredibly complicated place and none of us have a good answer to the mess we're in.

Capitalism is fucked up, there's no doubt. Morally, emotionally, it's a heartbreaker. More importantly, it objectively doesn't stand up to real scrutiny. As a theory it just isn't sound. There just isn't such a thing as a stable market; which means that capitalism, by definition, requires constant uncertainty and constant misery.

And yet, when it comes right down to it, the real "evil" of American global capitalism is that it works. If it didn't, we wouldn't all be sitting here today. Oh, it doesn't work for everyone, and it sucks balls for 90% of the world, but capitalism endures.

If Marx had been right, if the market had actually turned into a big oligarchic mess and the working conditions of the 18th century had persisted in the first world, who's to say what could have happened. Who knows, there might even have been a real revolution.

But he wasn't. Capitalism beat him, and it outsmarted him and it adapted itself to the changing conditions of the world and it became a softer friendlier evil. Still exploitive, still amorally thrusting for profit, but most importantly still working. And so today, we have the greatest living standards in the history of the world, bar none. In the capitalist world, we are seeing the best public health systems and greatest distribution of wealth.

The United States is a bit of an aberation in that its social welfare system is much less developed that most of the west. But then that brings us back to Obama and the article that started all of this. 'Cause Obama, and American social democrats in general, are proposing... well, all the things that social democrats always propose; like higher taxes on the rich and more money for the poor, and a firmer hand on the market.

And I have absolutely no doubt that Obama and the people around him genuinely want to do all of those things and to help poor people and working people and to bring about a fairer more equal America. And yet I also know that, in practice, a Democrat in the White House 'aint really that different from a Republican. So what's going on?

Is it, as the IMT proposes, a great bourgeois scam. Is it just a lack of working class mobilization? Well, the working class has never really had a political party in the United States. Not like it's had in Europe. The New Deal Coalition was about as close as it got and that's what the IMTs comparing Obama to! So what's going on?

Well it might just be that everyone's doing the best they can. That there are no perfect solutions in an imperfect world. The market can only be hampered so far before it starts to break and we've seen what happens when you try to remake it from the top down.

'Cause like it or not folks, the Soviet Union was the grand experiment. And so was China and Vietnam and Cuba and the dozen or so other countries where Marxist parties have come to power and tried to implement their "transition" to "communism".

"Communism"... that stateless, classless society that we must eventually reach as a civilization. But of which I have no idea how it will look. What I do know is that I probably won't see it in my lifetime, and that it almost certainly won't be called "communism" when it comes.

No, by then, "communism", like "trotskyism" and "leninism" and "anarchism" and all the other juvenile delusions of the radical left will have been long abandoned. Junked as the unworkable utopias they always were.

'Cause, come on, none of us really ever had that answer. You know the one, the answer to that newbie poster who naively wanders into Theory and asks so...why will people work if there's no money? We brush them off and move their post to Learning where they can be deluged with mountains of drivel and theory, but we never actually sit down and ponder the question because, I suspect, we all know somewhere in the back of our minds that there is no answer.

That, in the end, production does require incentives! People do not go to work for the joy of it. People do not like to work. Money's not the only thing that motivates, of course; ideas cas too. That's what happened in the heady days of revolutionary Spain, and to a lesser degree revolutionary Russia. But in the end, ideas only last so long.

Once the ideas have faded a bit, people sit down and wonder why again am I going to the factory every day? Which is why, of course, the Soviets paid their workers wages. I know, I know, it was "socialism", not "communism", but the fact remains, it was wage-labour, it was money.

All of which tells me that, when it comes down to it, we probably won't see a moneyless society until we finaly divorce production from labour. Once the technology develops to the point that everything can be automated and copmuterized, then classes become irrelevent and then we have "communism" (of one sort or another).

That sure ain't Marxist, but it's the only materialist conclusion I can come to.

And in the mean time, politics remains a very complicated, multi-faceted mess. People are still being screwed over, and they need to be helped; capitalism is still fucked up and it needs to be controlled. I don't know what that makes me, but then I kind of don't care.

The older I get, the more I realize I don't know. I don't need a political label, I just know what makes sense to me and what doesn't. When I take that moronic "political compass" test, I still come out -10, -10. But y'all would probably call be a "reformist", whatever, I don't care anymore.

This isn't me leaving the board, but I'm not sure if you'll still want me around. My views haven't really changed, I'm just being honest with myself: in the forseeable future, capitalism isn't going anywhere. We should do our best to minimize it's effects, and unions remain the greatest weapon in that fight, but the idea of a "proletarian revolution" is outlandish and anachronistic.

I posted a few weeks ago that modern American "liberalism" is foundationless as an ideology. That is, it isn't actually based on any single ideological tenet. That's still true, but I'm much less sure that that's actually a bad thing. Ideologies tend to do more harm than they do good. They tend to blind and to cloak. The left has certainly shed its fair share of blood in the name of spurious ideas.

So am I a "liberal"? I don't know. I still disagree with most of the mainstream liberal agenda. So I guess I don't know what I am. All the better. Labels are for file-folders.

And the older I get, the more I realize I don't know.

Peace.

[last_angry_man]

I'd bet most of the 'over-30s' on the board have had similar thoughts....
I know I have.

[RNK]

There's no way to blame you for becoming increasingly demoralized by the state of motionless activity the left has been in for... as long as any of us can remember. I've always held my doubts and reserves about some of the more outlandish sentiments in the communist movement. The idea of the "scientific utopia", of the idea that everything we have ever known, ever seen, ever learned, ever experienced can altogether change.

A more realistic approach to it is that any real change will never be seen in any of our lifetimes. It took centuries, hell, over a thousand years infact, for Europe to drag its sorry ass out of the bloody bog of the "dark ages" to embrace the progressiveness of bourgeois democracy. Likely so, it will take generations for any real, permanent progress to be made, to undo the last 5 centuries of tradition, notions of "value" and other social constructs which, like it or not, all of us have been urged from all sides to embrace.

Realistically, we should all be calling ourselves revolutionary socialists. Communism as a system is too far away for us to even hope to actively fight for it; the best we can do now is simply to fight the hegemony of capitalism, to fight the exploitation and suffering it causes, and begin to turn the tide towards progress.

You're right about communism. No one of us has ever seen it. We've got nothing more than theories and analysation from an outside perspective (from the perspective of capitalism, more accurately), but none of us really knows all the answers. And while some may believe that science is so powerful a tool as to be able to predict the future, in reality, scientific knowledge of rather relative, and particularly in the case of theory, scientific knowledge is little more than an educated guess based on what conditions we are able to directly observe.

Really, what needs to be done is a great "sitting down" to discuss and decide what actually needs to be done, what is actually possible here and now. We're able to clearly identify aspects of capitalism which need to be undone; we need to concern ourselves with how we are going to undo that, not what we're going to replace it with long, long into the future when it is gone. Often, when I look at the revolutionary community, I get the image of a great army of thinkers and writers and theoreticians, all standing in line, waiting to take up their place as important figures in communist society, with all the answers and all the knowledge -- which leaves very few of us to tackle the practical problems of the struggle which is taking place here and now and not 100 or 200 or 300 years from now.

Although you won't find many friends with your post here amongst these "great thinkers", in my opinion, we need more people like you -- we need less thinkers, and more people who are resolved to not knowing and who worry about the immediate practical problems rather than the future hypothetical problems. We need less people coming up with reasons why capitalism is bad and communism is good -- we need more people doing something to achieve practical progress.

This is why I am much more interested in socialist politics, in the period of transition (which I stated may take generations, even hundreds of years, before we're ready for any sort of universal enlightenmeny and the attainment of the perfect society), in the more immediate problems which face those who want real change; such as how class inequality and exploitation will be dealth with, not how many fucking chairs I'll have to build in order to aquire a fucking car in some quasi-idealist society that I'll never see.

I hope you stay, and I hope the radicals in the CC do not try and purge you from their perfect utopia of electronic communism. You give me the impression of someone who is more down to earth and concerned with real problems, not hypothetical theory that will not be proven or disproven for hundreds of years. Good luck to you, bud.

P.S. LOL AT CYM'S ROLE IN "CRUSHING" YOUR MORALE, I'M SO GOING TO EGG ON HIM FOR THIS FOREVER. "AHAHAH CYM YOU TOTALLY FUCKING DROVE LSD TO THE NUTHOUSE, AHAHAHA" (I've hung out with him a few times -- I was going to go to that meeting you went to, I wonder what kind of "crisis of faith" he would have incited in ME!)

[Publius]

You've come to roughly the same conclusion I did, only I came at it from another angle. You probably all remember when I was an ardent libertarian -- what an asshole I was then, eh? Well, I'm still the same asshole, only now I'm an unsure asshole, which might be worse. I don't know what to believe. The stunning realization I had was that I was wrong and that I was always going to be wrong. Out of the ideologies, out of all the beliefs and positions and permutations, what are the odds that I could get it right? Astronomically small. And then factor in that, I'm at best, an amateur political and economic theorist, and that people far smarter than me couldn't figure it out, and so then what hope do I have? I realized then that there was no such thing as "getting it right" in terms of coming up with the PERFECT political system that would fix all our problems and be immune to all difficulties. I thought I found that in libertarianism, but we all know that's just another fiction.

What I realized was that I just had to try to do what I could to make things a little bit better, and that, through the efforts of people better, smarter, more able, and more lucky than me, greater changes could be made.

I mean, take globalization. I've read probably nearly a dozen pro-globalization books, explaining why it's really good for the poor. And you know, even though I don't "believe in" globalization anymore, I can't really refute most of it. So when the left (which I vaguely associate myself with not) denounces 'globalization', I wonder what they means. They oppose exploiting poor people in 3rd world countries by paying them shit wages for hard labor? I can accept that. Except that the alternative is no wages period, or even lower wages for even shittier labor. It's shit either way. The capitalists are right ("working in a factory is better than starving") and the leftists are right ("working in those conditions sucks/is dangerous/is killing people.")

I guess you could call it a dialectic, if you're a masochist.

My realization was that I wasn't going to solve the problems that plagued the world. None was. The problems would solve themselves when we advanced far enough as a species, technologically, socially, economically. The problem of everyone dying in their 30s ended when we developed modern technology and health safety. But nobody set down on a rock 3,000 years ago and said "We really need some sanitation around here." It just happened that people wisened up and starting not shitting in their houses and living in refuse. And we got better at it, because we liked not shitting in our beds and living in refuse. The end of capitalism is going to occur the same way, which is to say none's going to plan it or even realize it's happening. It might be happening now as we speak, through some machinations we can't yet understand.

But eventually capitalism will give way to some better economy, something probably 'socialist' in nature, but also still probably like what we do now. Me, I think that some form of market socialism (don't ask me what form, I don't know), is going to take over. I very recently had an experience like yours, LSD. I bought the Parecon book from the campus bookstore (how leftist of me), and started reading it. I got through 30 pages before I realized it was pure bullshit, and this was when I WANTED to believe in Parecon. I wanted a system that I could point to as "the right one." Well, as I was reading the book, my old libertarian self kept screaming "This shit won't work!" And it was right. "Balanced job complexes"? Really? That idea was proven wrong the second Adam Smith realized that specialization is what produces economic efficiency. The idea that someone like me, who is smart, education, talented, should sweep floors half the day while the janitor edits my book or something is, on its face, ridiculous. And yet this is taken seriously. And this isn't even to get into the issue of how you make EVERY SINGLE JOB COMPLEX IN THE ECONOMY "equal". But my point isn't just to impugn Parecon -- there are some OK ideas there, I guess. My point is that any speculation on how the economy should run, or is going to run, is just that: pure, worthless speculation. It's either that or a meaningless platitude like "the economy should serve everyone's interets." Well....yeah. But so what? I should be rich and famous and happy and never to work a day in my life. What's that have to do with anything? I mean, if John Maynard Keynes couldn't figure out the economy, you sure as hell aren't going to, and neither am I. Bertrand Russel said that Keynes was the most intelligent person he ever met. Bertrand Russel was friends with Ludwig Wittgenstein. Think about this for a second. Keynes was, in probability, one of the greatest geniuses to have ever lived, and certainly one of the greatest to apply his mind almost solely to economics. And his ideas were problematic -- look at stagflation. Now this isn't an argument over whether Keyneseniasm, or some variant of it, is ultimately the best economic model. It may be. I'm sympathetic to that idea. The point is that no exercise of intellect is going solve the problem of capitalism. There isn't going to be a workers revolution -- the workers don't want to revolt. Ask one sometime. But there is hope. Things will get better over time. That's the trend at least, and they can't rightly get worse. Starvation is starvation, disease is disease, and poverty is poverty. And the end result would seem to be some egalitarian system, or some equitable, humane system. Either that or we nuke ourselves first.

Your guess as to which.

EDIT: I'd also like to post this, a similar type of post from another forum which comes to sort of the same conclusion: http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=85431

Full disclosure: I'm EN[i]GMA, if you couldn't have already guessed, which you should have been able to do.

[Bud Struggle]

LSD.

That was a brilliant post. I'm new here and a Capitalist and the post wasn't addressed to me, so I won't comment on it line by line, but you have pretty much nailed down the facts of the situation. I wish you all the best on your journey.

TomK

[apathy maybe]

Anarchism it is where it is at.

OK, I can understand your points I think (I'm not about to reply line by line though).

I've been around here for longer then you have, in that year and a bit my views shifted from my statist ideas to some idea of anarchism. Since then I've matured in my anarchistic ideas a lot.

And I will address some of what you say directly.

You may say

No, by then, "communism", like "trotskyism" and "leninism" and "anarchism" and all the other juvenile delusions of the radical left will have been long abandoned. Junked as the unworkable utopias they always were.
But that, to my mind, misses the point of what "anarchism" really is! It isn't a "delusion" (juvenile or otherwise) of anyone. It is a desire, a yearning to be free, to live a life without oppression and hierarchy. As such, it doesn't provide answers, it doesn't give blue-prints, in a way it can't! Anarchism is a super-set of ideologies, it encompasses so many different strands with so many different ideas.
To quote myself from a story I wrote once,

The oppressors will use every weapon they can against us, but we are stronger. We can win. Even if it takes hundreds of years, the fight for freedom will continue; there will always be anarchists, and, given enough time, there won't be governments.
There will always be those who desire an end to oppression, there will always be anarchists.


'Cause, come on, none of us really ever had that answer. You know the one, the answer to that newbie poster who naively wanders into Theory and asks so...why will people work if there's no money? We brush them off and move their post to Learning where they can be deluged with mountains of drivel and theory, but we never actually sit down and ponder the question because, I suspect, we all know somewhere in the back of our minds that there is no answer.
Heh, people around here are so against the market. Yet most of them don't even know what the "market" is (no, it isn't "capitalism"). Remember what I said about anarchism above? Well some anarchists answered this question with "the market". They thought that freedom was only achievable when a person was able to have full control of their own life, which meant "owning" property to do so.




All of which tells me that, when it comes down to it, we probably won't see a moneyless society until we finaly divorce production from labour. Once the technology develops to the point that everything can be automated and copmuterized, then classes become irrelevent and then we have "communism" (of one sort or another).

That sure ain't Marxist, but it's the only materialist conclusion I can come to.
Of "one sort or another". That's the thing isn't it, because people love power. Even with the technology to finally abolish economic classes, there will still be those who want that lovely power. Unless we can create a society where such things are socialised out of people, in other words, we need anarchism to have anarchism. Of course, that isn't going to happen over night.


And in the mean time, politics remains a very complicated, multi-faceted mess. People are still being screwed over, and they need to be helped; capitalism is still fucked up and it needs to be controlled. I don't know what that makes me, but then I kind of don't care.

The older I get, the more I realize I don't know. I don't need a political label, I just know what makes sense to me and what doesn't. When I take that moronic "political compass" test, I still come out -10, -10. But y'all would probably call be a "reformist", whatever, I don't care anymore.
What are you? Does it matter? I direct you to something Emma Goldman related, an old man talking about the eight hour day, "What were man of his age to do? They were not likely to see the ultimate overthrow of the capitalist system. Were they also to forego the release of perhaps two hours a day form the hated work? That was all they could hope to see realized in their lifetime."

Even a fight for reform is a fight against injustice.



I've been disillusioned with the "class struggle" almost since I joined it. Protests don't over throw capitalism... Ranting doesn't either. Heck, throwing rocks at cops or through bank windows doesn't do shit either!

Of course, all these activities are fun to greater or lesser extents, and that isn't to be discounted. But to a greater or lesser extent, things like the G8 are spectacles, performances, a play by them, and a play by us.

So I don't know what the answer is either. I think I know what the answer isn't, but that isn't an answer, is it.


Anyway, finally I'll just say that I think a lot of people have missed the point (both the cappies in OI, and a lot of other folk in the CC). I hope I haven't.

So what was I saying? Ah yes, if you really were an anarchist, then even if you are disillusioned, you should still be one. Oppression should still grate upon you, you should still desire freedom. I hope you do, and if you do I'll still say you are a comrade.

[RevMARKSman]

I vote that LSD be forced to stay forever. Seriously.

[RNK]

Well said a_m. Maybe I was wrong about you.

...Nah. ;)

[BIG BROTHER]

Well LSD you still and will always have my respect, and you don't have to worry that's why young people like us exist, to embrace ideals without thinking too much about it.

[Psy]

Facades usually stay up long after core of the system is rotted out, if we look behind the capitalist facade the capitalism system has been dying since the 1970's. The crises of capital keeps getting worse, the current housing/debt bubble is far worse then the tech bubble that is worse then the stagflation of the 70's. Corruption in the capitalist world is now surpassing anything that was in the USSR, and there is rising worker apathy toward their tasks thus less and less gets done (like in the USSR leading up to collapse of the USSR).

Even the bourgeois are petrified of the recent market crash, more and more bourgeois economists are starting to say the sky is falling they are not even factoring the peaking of production due to finite nature of Earth that is looming.

You see a capitalist system that endures, I see a crumbling system.

[Led Zeppelin]

I am going to repost my reply to LSD here:

People work in a communist society because they can take what they need, their incentive to work is their actual ability to take whatever they need to consume.

I'm not sure why you suddenly "forgot" about that answer, but it's been around for over a hundred years, and capitalists have been arguing against it for the same amount of time.

If people suddenly "pondered the question" and decided like you to give up on communism altogether, there would've been no Bolshevik party, no Leninism, no Trotskyism, not even Marxism, now would there?

Sorry LSD, I respect you a lot, but you've gotten in a ditch, though I understand your position. Going to a meeting like that has also made me rethink a lot of things I used to held to be true, but you know what? I always come to the same conclusions, because like or not, Marxism is based on cold hard logic. Materialism and logic dictate that capitalism cannot survive for a long period of time.

You do realize that, while you were in that room arguing with those sectarian Trots, the world is slowly but surely reverting to barbarism, right?

The dictum "socialism or barbarism" still holds true today, and by giving up on actual struggle and taking an economist position on the matter (we just have to wait for the technology) you have rendered yourself useless to the struggles of the working-class, sadly.

You like historical materialism, don't you? Well, why don't you consider that ideology played a key part in the development of capitalism? Why don't you consider that without it there would have been no capitalist economic system today? Without the bourgeois ideologues there would be no bourgeoisie as it is today, with its fixed political, economic and moral theories.

The bourgeoisie also had to endure quite some failures before it finally came to power, and it did so when feudalism also fell to a similar dictum "capitalism or barbarism". The French people decided that they were going for capitalism instead of barbarism, and so capitalism arose and took power.

Today we face a similar situation, though obviously not yet with the same level of urgency. It will come though, don't worry about that. If the economies themselves won't collapse by their illogical character, the environment will take care of it.

Does this mean that we should just all sit and wait for that moment to come? No, because when that time does come and we are not organized, we will fail. We need to have an organization and leadership capable of leading the struggle when it gains momentum.

I'm sorry you gave up on Marxism and decided that economism is the best way to go, but do realize that it is nothing new. Economists have existed for centuries, and real revolutionaries had to deal with them for a long time.

As for socialism actually working, the planned economy has proved its worth in the Soviet Union in practice. What do you prefer, capitalist Russia or centrally planned Soviet Union? Only a person with no knowledge of economics whatsoever would say that capitalist Russia is superior to the centrally planned Soviet Union.

Having said that, I don't mind you remaining an Admin. At least you still realize that capitalism isn't working and should be changed. Too bad that the methods for changing it have been reduced to "sitting around and waiting for it" by you.

I suggest you take a break from those sects, they're not healthy.

If there's one thing that can cause a Marxist to despair it's hanging around them.
Also, to further strengthen the point I made above, and I hope LSD and every other member will read this carefully:



Gigantic achievement in industry, enormously promising beginnings in agriculture, an extraordinary growth of the old industrial cities and a building of new ones, a rapid increase of the numbers of workers, a rise in cultural level and cultural demands – such are the indubitable results of the October revolution, in which the prophets of the old world tried to see the grave of human civilization. With the bourgeois economists we have no longer anything to quarrel over. Socialism has demonstrated its right to victory, not on the pages of Das Kapital, but in an industrial arena comprising a sixth part of the earths surface – not in the language of dialectics, but in the language of steel, cement and electricity. Even if the Soviet Union, as a result of internal difficulties, external blows and the mistakes of leadership, were to collapse – which we firmly hope will not happen – there would remain an earnest of the future this indestructible fact, that thanks solely to a proletarian revolution a backward country has achieved in less than 10 years successes unexampled in history.

This also ends the quarrel with the reformists in the workers movement. Can we compare for one moment their mouselike fussing with the titanic work accomplished by this people aroused to a new life by revolution? If in 1918 the Social-Democrats of Germany had employed the power imposed upon them by the workers for a socialist revolution, and not for the rescue of capitalism, it is easy to see on the basis of the Russian experience what unconquerable economic power would be possessed today by a socialist bloc of Central and Eastern Europe and a considerable part of Asia. The peoples of the world will pay for the historic crime of reformism with new wars and revolutions.


Going over to the side of the movement which betrayed the working-class and indirectly caused the misery and deaths of millions of people since 1918 is not only sad, but I would say reactionary.

[Demogorgon]

I'll put a fuller reply in the CC, where some things I say will be more appropriate, but in the spirit of openess I will give an answer here. You say a hell of a lot of things there that I disagree with, but you also say some things that I agree with.

I think the current Communist movement in a lot of Western countries needs a serious kick up the arse. It needs to be reminded

-that there is no revolution obviously imminent and there won't be until the Communist movement makes itself relevant again

-that silly games of fighting fascists need to end. Fascism (in its classic form) is mostly dead and this goodies and baddies campaign agaisnt the sad remnants of it is play acting, not class struggle and only detracts fromt he fight against neo-liberalism

-that most people in the west no longer work in factories. This constant discussion of the average "factory worker" is nothing but a patronising romanticisation of the working class by people who have no idea how people really live.

I guess my real point is that the nineteen thirties are gone and won't come back. Communism must be relevant to the twenty first century or it is nothing.

On the other hand it is insane to say that capitalism will last. Nothing lasts forever after all and capitalism will one day be history and hopefully something better will replace it. To anyone who says that revolutionary change is not possible I will remind you that the last hundred years has seen the most important revolutionary change in human history-the feminist revolution. If change like that can come about...

So in short, many of your criticisms are true but you are too pessimistic. The current communist movement is to a large extent in the doldrums but there is no reason for it to stay that way. It just has to wake up and bring itself right up to modern times.

[Invader Zim]

I'll put a fuller reply in the CC, where some things I say will be more appropriate, but in the spirit of openess I will give an answer here. You say a hell of a lot of things there that I disagree with, but you also say some things that I agree with.

I think the current Communist movement in a lot of Western countries needs a serious kick up the arse. It needs to be reminded

-that there is no revolution obviously imminent and there won't be until the Communist movement makes itself relevant again

-that silly games of fighting fascists need to end. Fascism (in its classic form) is mostly dead and this goodies and baddies campaign agaisnt the sad remnants of it is play acting, not class struggle and only detracts fromt he fight against neo-liberalism

-that most people in the west no longer work in factories. This constant discussion of the average "factory worker" is nothing but a patronising romanticisation of the working class by people who have no idea how people really live.

I guess my real point is that the nineteen thirties are gone and won't come back. Communism must be relevant to the twenty first century or it is nothing.

On the other hand it is insane to say that capitalism will last. Nothing lasts forever after all and capitalism will one day be history and hopefully something better will replace it. To anyone who says that revolutionary change is not possible I will remind you that the last hundred years has seen the most important revolutionary change in human history-the feminist revolution. If change like that can come about...

So in short, many of your criticisms are true but you are too pessimistic. The current communist movement is to a large extent in the doldrums but there is no reason for it to stay that way. It just has to wake up and bring itself right up to modern times.

Damn, Demogorgon; your post +1.

[Dean]

Except they had just spent twelve good paragraphs outlining how they were exactly not like George W. Bush's. So I was somewhat flumoxed as to just what it was that these folks were trying to pursuade me towards. And then it hit me, they don't know know.

The tone of the article was so propagandistic and rhetorical, and yet there was no content to it, no actual point other than vague allusions to the "working class" and "crises" of some vague hypothetical imagining. And it occured to me that these people have been writing this article, this very same damn article, for almost a hundred years now. Every year, in some little Trotksyist rag that no one reads, an article about how we need a "working class party" and the "revolution" is just on the horizon.
This kind of rhetoric angers me. Perhaps that has to do with why I am on the restricted board. But I don't think you have to be comunist, egalitarian, socialist, anarchist, whatever to understand that this mindless ideology is stupid and nonsensical.


'Cause like it or not folks, the Soviet Union was the grand experiment. And so was China and Vietnam and Cuba and the dozen or so other countries where Marxist parties have come to power and tried to implement their "transition" to "communism".
You left out all the others - that is, nearly every nation that has ever coem into existance. There is a reason the paris commune was the "ideal communist paradise" for Marx, and yet it wasn't marcist. Freedom, and the drive for it, is a human thing, not solely a marxist thing. The great revolution may not be under a marxist banner, but that will probably be a good thing - you can't force peopel to be free, and I doubt most will accept marx considering those experiments you reference.


"Communism"... that stateless, classless society that we must eventually reach as a civilization. But of which I have no idea how it will look. What I do know is that I probably won't see it in my lifetime, and that it almost certainly won't be called "communism" when it comes.
I don't now if it will happen; the point is to try. We as humans must seek a human future.


No, by then, "communism", like "trotskyism" and "leninism" and "anarchism" and all the other juvenile delusions of the radical left will have been long abandoned. Junked as the unworkable utopias they always were.

'Cause, come on, none of us really ever had that answer. You know the one, the answer to that newbie poster who naively wanders into Theory and asks so...why will people work if there's no money? We brush them off and move their post to Learning where they can be deluged with mountains of drivel and theory, but we never actually sit down and ponder the question because, I suspect, we all know somewhere in the back of our minds that there is no answer.
Should there be? Isn't it dangerous to say that we can not only hpe for, fight for, predict, but also architect the future we seek? Why can't we just say "we demand freedom" and fight on that principle? If we go further, and make images of Paradise, it becomes the idolized Christian sin. It is wrong for a reason: Hitlers, Stalins, Pol Pots all envisioned it. But I don't remember the Swedes, French, Oaxacans seeking it - they just demanded an end to tyranny.


That, in the end, production does require incentives! People do not go to work for the joy of it. People do not like to work. Money's not the only thing that motivates, of course; ideas cas too. That's what happened in the heady days of revolutionary Spain, and to a lesser degree revolutionary Russia. But in the end, ideas only last so long.

Once the ideas have faded a bit, people sit down and wonder why again am I going to the factory every day? Which is why, of course, the Soviets paid their workers wages. I know, I know, it was "socialism", not "communism", but the fact remains, it was wage-labour, it was money.
The incentive for the work is supposed to be the end result of the work.


All of which tells me that, when it comes down to it, we probably won't see a moneyless society until we finaly divorce production from labour. Once the technology develops to the point that everything can be automated and copmuterized, then classes become irrelevent and then we have "communism" (of one sort or another).
Soulless, drugged technocracy is the new ideal, apparently. I've seen it promoted at RL, and it's frightening. We should not welcome in the new masters.


The older I get, the more I realize I don't know. I don't need a political label, I just know what makes sense to me and what doesn't. When I take that moronic "political compass" test, I still come out -10, -10. But y'all would probably call be a "reformist", whatever, I don't care anymore.

This isn't me leaving the board, but I'm not sure if you'll still want me around. My views haven't really changed, I'm just being honest with myself: in the forseeable future, capitalism isn't going anywhere. We should do our best to minimize it's effects, and unions remain the greatest weapon in that fight, but the idea of a "proletarian revolution" is outlandish and anachronistic.
You take a small negative and turn it into a grand impossibility maxim. I think you're more depressed than ideologically uncertain.


I posted a few weeks ago that modern American "liberalism" is foundationless as an ideology. That is, it isn't actually based on any single ideological tenet. That's still true, but I'm much less sure that that's actually a bad thing. Ideologies tend to do more harm than they do good. They tend to blind and to cloak. The left has certainly shed its fair share of blood in the name of spurious ideas.

So am I a "liberal"? I don't know. I still disagree with most of the mainstream liberal agenda. So I guess I don't know what I am. All the better. Labels are for file-folders.

And the older I get, the more I realize I don't know.

Peace.
Dogmatic ideologies are bad. That's why I try to be fluid in my thinking. I am a bit disturbed by some of what you say, but probably just as much of it pleases me in your apparent relaxation of dogmatism and idolatry. I think what's most important to remember is that we have to fight for what is right, be future oriented and recognize the injustice in the world. Most people here seem content to ***** about marxist lenist theories, which I find somewhat interesting but I am becomign more and more concerned with present political struggles and human rights problems. The thread against Amnesty International here says it all about how some people here think: they love ideas, not humans.

You seem depressed and cynical now, but I hope that changes. Just remember that being a good person, fighting for what is right, doesn't have to mean fighting for what you don't know. It's like someone from Chumbawamba said : "Anarchism isn't something that happens after some mythical revolution has taken place. It's the struggle to be human in an environment which encourages the inhuman." That says a lot, I think, about what really matters here.

[MarxSchmarx]

Demogorgon:

I agree 100% that "the Communist movement in a lot of Western countries needs a serious kick up the arse". The same should be said for the anti-capitalist movement as a whole.

However, I'm rather troubled by your claim that


silly games of fighting fascists need to end. Fascism (in its classic form) is mostly dead and this goodies and baddies campaign agaisnt the sad remnants of it is play acting, not class struggle and only detracts fromt he fight against neo-liberalismWhat keeps it dead is the vigilance of the left. Your point about it detracting from precious resources is well taken. Yet the bourgeoisie have time and time again proven themselves happy to collaborate, or at least look the other way, with fascists. If the serious left doesn't recognize the threat these assholes pose, who will?

Take, for instance, the Japanese textbook controversy. Without hard-line leftists in the Japanese teacher's union, the Japanese state would be more than happy to whitewash its past.

Another problem is that fascism manages to appeal to the same demographic we are after - young, politically engaged working class people. I see nothing wrong with ideological competition, be it against bourgeois temptations or fascist thuggery.

[Sankofa]

I wonder if your disenchantment and analysis of Communism is exclusive to the first world countries only?

Having had similar thoughts; it's obvious that people in the first world won't achieve class consciousness anytime soon, regrettable, but a fact that must be accepted.

If we intend to simply ride the capitalist treadmill hoping that sometime the situation will magically change, with out any outside actions, why even waste our time?

It's in my opinion, the only real future for socialism is the Third World. It only makes sense; they are the super-exploited. For them, waiting around for capitalism to simply die of a miracle, or old age just isn't an option.

Why don't comrades here actively support their revolutions? Our reaction has to be something other than mass criticism based petty guidelines, information obtained from bourgeois sources or empty solidarity.

Why don't we take it a step further; go out and take an active part in the struggle? (Yes, I'm talking to myself too.)

Can we really change thing by simply debating theory in our capitalist backyard? Does our non-action mean we're simply "fake" idealists and therefore, Have we ourselves contributed to the domination of capitalism by our apathy to do anything worth while about it?

This isn't an attack towards anyone; merely my expansion of LSD's thoughts. I'll be the first to admit, I'm not as intellectually advanced about all things communist as many posters on these boards, but this is my perspective.

Does Socialism stand a better chance if more comrades took a more progressive approach; even if it means leaving comfortable settings in our respective countries where revolution is no where in sight, and taking part in revolutions that are currently taking place?

[Joby]

good post, LSD.

Eat, Drink, and be Merry. It's just one big fuckin roller coaster ride, enjoy it.

[careyprice31]

"Ideologies tend to do more harm than they do good. They tend to blind and to cloak. The left has certainly shed its fair share of blood in the name of spurious ideas."

I am almost 30, and have the same thoughts as LSD.

I really like his post but especially this.

It is certainly true here I find on this board the views are narrow and i am afraid to speak for fear of being restricted. But then I think why are u a wuss; its only a internet board why should i care if i am?

LSD spoke, so shall I.

For example, environmentalists are akin to primitivism, and capitalists and capitalism is bad.

But that is a narrow view to take, I'll tell you why.

I never heard anyone here say anything good about capitalists. its all been bad. But not all humans are alike, not all capitalists are alike. You cant just lump them all into one boat and say they're all****s. There are capitalists who have done good for the world, and there are capitalists who do care about the afflicted and the oppressed. And even though capitalists are greedy their ideas have done good for the world like you might not like Bill Gates and his greed, but you cannot deny the fact he has done good for technology with his computers.

and I read about the poor fellow who got restricted and criticized by someone from RL because he defended his father who worked as a police officer. The person - i dont know who it was - said that cops were ****s therefore his father was one too. Now this fellow didnt even know the guys father. He was just speaking out of a narrow stereotype about cops being jerks because they work for the state. It is a fact that a lot of times poor criminals are treated differently from rich white ones, and all are equal only in theory, but do not believe that all police officers behave like that or even think like that. I do believe in there are good cops out there and they arent all bad.

Anyway, yes ideologies can very very narrow for a world that is much more complex than the ideology allows for. It shows even in this forum where for example, by the time I'd been here a week I could sense the narrowness of the forum. People are way too quick to judge. and to restricted basedf on that judgement.

How can we call ourselves fighters for human rights if we only respected those who agree with us? If we are to learn, first we must listen and open up our ears, and our eyes and our minds to a world far too complex for any narrowmindedness.

I'm not sure if this board will even want me around now. after i said this....I only been here a few weeks.

[The Feral Underclass]

Eat, Drink, and be Merry. It's just one big fuckin roller coaster ride, enjoy it.

Unless of course you're incredibly poor or just making enough money to pay your rent and pay your bills, in which case you can eat and drink, just - and the merry bit will have to come when you go to heaven, right?

Dick!

[The Feral Underclass]

you have pretty much nailed down the facts of the situation. I wish you all the best on your journey.

Except there are no facts, just opinion. LSD has not presented any factual based argument he's simply vented his opinions and whether you like it or not, I'm afraid giving an opinion does not constitute a fact.

[careyprice31]

Unless of course you're incredibly poor or just making enough money to pay your rent and pay your pills, in which case you can eat and drink...just and the merry bit will have to come when you go to heaven, right?

Dick!

I know of people who only have like less than $200 a month to live on.

Dont get me wrong, I am not defending capitalism , I think we can do better, we just choose not to. Fact is capitalism is only good for some people. Most people don't live really well, actually. The system only favors a minority. I just dont think all capitalists are bad people. Not all police are bad people. And not everyone in the army is bad. There are some who do care and know the system is flawed and needs a new system.

Im all for a revolution and getting a new system. (thats why im here.) I just realize you cant put a whole group of people into one bag and say they're all alike.

[Demogorgon]

Demogorgon:

I agree 100% that "the Communist movement in a lot of Western countries needs a serious kick up the arse". The same should be said for the anti-capitalist movement as a whole.

However, I'm rather troubled by your claim that
What keeps it dead is the vigilance of the left. Your point about it detracting from precious resources is well taken. Yet the bourgeoisie have time and time again proven themselves happy to collaborate, or at least look the other way, with fascists. If the serious left doesn't recognize the threat these assholes pose, who will?

Take, for instance, the Japanese textbook controversy. Without hard-line leftists in the Japanese teacher's union, the Japanese state would be more than happy to whitewash its past.

Another problem is that fascism manages to appeal to the same demographic we are after - young, politically engaged working class people. I see nothing wrong with ideological competition, be it against bourgeois temptations or fascist thuggery.
Sorry, but this notion that far left Vigilance is keeping fascism down is silly and is trying to romanticise us as shadowy warriors fighting a secret battle for the good of society. What keeps the classic version of fascism down is the bourgoisie would rather self themselves into slavery than try that route again. It is gone and isn't coming back.

The irony is that while we try and make silly fights against the angry young men who think they are the new wave of Nazis (but are really just looking for a cause of rebellion) is that we are missing the rise of a new far right that is gradually working its way into power.

This new far right certainly doesn't call itself fascists and certainly doesn't come from the same place that fascists came from. It usually comes out of mainstream Conservatism or occasioanlly liberalism. It is exemplified by Jorg Haider in Austria, Felip Dewimter in Belgium, Gelert Wilders in the Netherlands, UKIP in Britain and so forth. The left has had various degrees of success in noticing it, and protesting against it, but has largely allowed it to develop because it is too caught up in its play fight against the remnants of old fascism to notice the rise of the newe far right.

[hajduk]

I've been posting on this board since January of 2004, that's over four years now. I've been an administrator for two. In that time, I've managed to post well over 7,000 posts, many of them rather long. Indeed, I think I've gotten something of a reputation for posting very long drawn out posts. So I suppose it's fitting that this is going to be a really long one.

I'd ask you to bear through it, though, 'cause after reading it, you may well want to reconsider my status on this site. For my part, I still enjoy posting, but I'm not sure that you will want me around after you read the following.

So here goes.

A few days ago, CyM invited me to a Trotskyist meeting here in Montreal. I had nothing better to do so I came along and observed, and it's been eating at me ever since. I think it might well be the single most disturbing moment of my entire life.

'Cause sitting in that crowded dusty little office, full of books no one wants to read and articles by authors no one's ever heard of, I was struck by the abject pointlessness of it all.

The subject of the meeting was environmentalism, and after a rather long and droning speech by the moderator about how capitalism is bad and socialism is good, the "list" was brought out and each member got a chance to put their name forward to make a comment. And they all spoke in grandiose terms about the "revolution" and the "proletariat" and how nothing could be solved until we "overthrow" capitalism.... and then we broke for beers.

And that, my friends, is the revolutionary vanguard of the proletariat. A bunch of lonlely deluded idealists sitting around in a backroom dreaming Russian dreams that died seventy years ago.

After the beers, though, there were some personal problems that emerged. Seems that some of the members didn't like other members and blah blah blah, and someone said something that someone else thought could be sexist. And so so CyM took him outside and explained to him about "comradeship" and how when we're all fighting in the revolution, we have to trust each other.

And I just stood there listening. And I agreed with everything he said about sexism (the guy was a real jackoff), but this concept, "fighting in the revolution", it just kept banging around my head until I realized that he really believes that in the forseeable future the "proletariat" are going to "rise up" and establish a "workers state". And in that same moment I realized that I didn't.

I don't know what the future holds, but I do know that history does not move in circles. The age of street revolutions, in the first world at least, is over. This cannot be the "end of history", but neither is this 1929 redux.

Before I got home, CyM and I hung out for a while and watched a movie, and talked a bit (mostly he talked, and I stared blankly). And he talked about entryism and the Militant and he made a lot of reasonable points, within the paradigm.

When I got home, I was in a state of some confusion and, looking for answers, I turned his party's page and there, on the IMT webpage, I saw this analysis of Barack Obama's US Presidential campaign (http://www.marxist.com/usa/barack-obama.htm) and it all crystalized for me.

In this article, the IMT provides, albeit somewhat snarkily, a reasonable condensation of Obama's positions. Now their conclusion, of course, was that Obama was a "just anothoer bourgeois politician" and that his politics were ipso facto indistinguishable from those of George W. Bush.

Except they had just spent twelve good paragraphs outlining how they were exactly not like George W. Bush's. So I was somewhat flumoxed as to just what it was that these folks were trying to pursuade me towards. And then it hit me, they don't know know.

The tone of the article was so propagandistic and rhetorical, and yet there was no content to it, no actual point other than vague allusions to the "working class" and "crises" of some vague hypothetical imagining. And it occured to me that these people have been writing this article, this very same damn article, for almost a hundred years now. Every year, in some little Trotksyist rag that no one reads, an article about how we need a "working class party" and the "revolution" is just on the horizon.

There is something so comically tragic about it. I've been going through some changes in my life, reconsidering some of my paradigms and preconceptions, and the one thing I'm realizing is that the older I get, the less I'm certain of. The fact is, the world is an incredibly complicated place and none of us have a good answer to the mess we're in.

Capitalism is fucked up, there's no doubt. Morally, emotionally, it's a heartbreaker. More importantly, it objectively doesn't stand up to real scrutiny. As a theory it just isn't sound. There just isn't such a thing as a stable market; which means that capitalism, by definition, requires constant uncertainty and constant misery.

And yet, when it comes right down to it, the real "evil" of American global capitalism is that it works. If it didn't, we wouldn't all be sitting here today. Oh, it doesn't work for everyone, and it sucks balls for 90% of the world, but capitalism endures.

If Marx had been right, if the market had actually turned into a big oligarchic mess and the working conditions of the 18th century had persisted in the first world, who's to say what could have happened. Who knows, there might even have been a real revolution.

But he wasn't. Capitalism beat him, and it outsmarted him and it adapted itself to the changing conditions of the world and it became a softer friendlier evil. Still exploitive, still amorally thrusting for profit, but most importantly still working. And so today, we have the greatest living standards in the history of the world, bar none. In the capitalist world, we are seeing the best public health systems and greatest distribution of wealth.

The United States is a bit of an aberation in that its social welfare system is much less developed that most of the west. But then that brings us back to Obama and the article that started all of this. 'Cause Obama, and American social democrats in general, are proposing... well, all the things that social democrats always propose; like higher taxes on the rich and more money for the poor, and a firmer hand on the market.

And I have absolutely no doubt that Obama and the people around him genuinely want to do all of those things and to help poor people and working people and to bring about a fairer more equal America. And yet I also know that, in practice, a Democrat in the White House 'aint really that different from a Republican. So what's going on?

Is it, as the IMT proposes, a great bourgeois scam. Is it just a lack of working class mobilization? Well, the working class has never really had a political party in the United States. Not like it's had in Europe. The New Deal Coalition was about as close as it got and that's what the IMTs comparing Obama to! So what's going on?

Well it might just be that everyone's doing the best they can. That there are no perfect solutions in an imperfect world. The market can only be hampered so far before it starts to break and we've seen what happens when you try to remake it from the top down.

'Cause like it or not folks, the Soviet Union was the grand experiment. And so was China and Vietnam and Cuba and the dozen or so other countries where Marxist parties have come to power and tried to implement their "transition" to "communism".

"Communism"... that stateless, classless society that we must eventually reach as a civilization. But of which I have no idea how it will look. What I do know is that I probably won't see it in my lifetime, and that it almost certainly won't be called "communism" when it comes.

No, by then, "communism", like "trotskyism" and "leninism" and "anarchism" and all the other juvenile delusions of the radical left will have been long abandoned. Junked as the unworkable utopias they always were.

'Cause, come on, none of us really ever had that answer. You know the one, the answer to that newbie poster who naively wanders into Theory and asks so...why will people work if there's no money? We brush them off and move their post to Learning where they can be deluged with mountains of drivel and theory, but we never actually sit down and ponder the question because, I suspect, we all know somewhere in the back of our minds that there is no answer.

That, in the end, production does require incentives! People do not go to work for the joy of it. People do not like to work. Money's not the only thing that motivates, of course; ideas cas too. That's what happened in the heady days of revolutionary Spain, and to a lesser degree revolutionary Russia. But in the end, ideas only last so long.

Once the ideas have faded a bit, people sit down and wonder why again am I going to the factory every day? Which is why, of course, the Soviets paid their workers wages. I know, I know, it was "socialism", not "communism", but the fact remains, it was wage-labour, it was money.

All of which tells me that, when it comes down to it, we probably won't see a moneyless society until we finaly divorce production from labour. Once the technology develops to the point that everything can be automated and copmuterized, then classes become irrelevent and then we have "communism" (of one sort or another).

That sure ain't Marxist, but it's the only materialist conclusion I can come to.

And in the mean time, politics remains a very complicated, multi-faceted mess. People are still being screwed over, and they need to be helped; capitalism is still fucked up and it needs to be controlled. I don't know what that makes me, but then I kind of don't care.

The older I get, the more I realize I don't know. I don't need a political label, I just know what makes sense to me and what doesn't. When I take that moronic "political compass" test, I still come out -10, -10. But y'all would probably call be a "reformist", whatever, I don't care anymore.

This isn't me leaving the board, but I'm not sure if you'll still want me around. My views haven't really changed, I'm just being honest with myself: in the forseeable future, capitalism isn't going anywhere. We should do our best to minimize it's effects, and unions remain the greatest weapon in that fight, but the idea of a "proletarian revolution" is outlandish and anachronistic.

I posted a few weeks ago that modern American "liberalism" is foundationless as an ideology. That is, it isn't actually based on any single ideological tenet. That's still true, but I'm much less sure that that's actually a bad thing. Ideologies tend to do more harm than they do good. They tend to blind and to cloak. The left has certainly shed its fair share of blood in the name of spurious ideas.

So am I a "liberal"? I don't know. I still disagree with most of the mainstream liberal agenda. So I guess I don't know what I am. All the better. Labels are for file-folders.

And the older I get, the more I realize I don't know.

Peace.WHAT A FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU COMRADER LSD?
On a first sign of what you thaught taht is pointless you say "ooo who gives a fuck"?.You live in a good state by the angle how i see,you have a bunch of good comraders how i see,you didnt see the horror of war and mass graweyards,you didnt feel how it is when imperialists and capitalists using you and your comraders like lab rats,you dont know the sadness of mother who lost own children without reason (do you see this http://youtube.com/watch?v=r74hsAsbqnQ

and you have guts to say that you see that nothing cant change with revolution becouse your oppinion is that nobody give fuck?!?

WAKE UP LSD,imperialists whant you to sleep and that is happening to you know,YOU ARE JUST FAL A SLEEP TO MUTCH and nothing else,
remember the movie of John Carpenter "They live" when in one scene in this movie somebody draw graffiti
THEY LIVE WE SLEEP
just wake up from the fake dream which been created by media who are under controll, and you will find more energy to fight back,becouse imperialists and capitalist whant from you to sleep and sleep and sleep and sleep and sleep and sleep and sleep........












so


























































WAKE UP LSD

[RGacky3]

Theres a video I came across on youtube while at work a while ago

http://youtube.com/watch?v=LR7dNntU5oI

Your right, Capitalism keeps going, it endures, but that does'nt make it right, and right is right, and the ideals of equality, dignity, justice, liberty for everybody stay there, you may never see a revolution, a general strike, an uprising in your lifetime, but that does'nt change anything, right is right.

People who say being a revolutionary has nothing to do with moral values only materialism might as well just give up and try and make it in the system.

But every little thing counts, 2 months ago, in my workplace we had to work overtime with no overtime pay, we refused to work past 8 hours, told him after 5:30 we would leave if the work was done or not, we got overtime pay. I work in a small office, about 6 workers, most people would look at that and say its really nothing, and in the big picture it is meaningless, BUT, its still there and right is right, and anytime workers stand up and do something, it counts.

[Bud Struggle]

Demogorgon:

However, I'm rather troubled by your claim that
What keeps it dead is the vigilance of the left. Your point about it detracting from precious resources is well taken. Yet the bourgeoisie have time and time again proven themselves happy to collaborate, or at least look the other way, with fascists. If the serious left doesn't recognize the threat these assholes pose, who will?

Take, for instance, the Japanese textbook controversy. Without hard-line leftists in the Japanese teacher's union, the Japanese state would be more than happy to whitewash its past.

Another problem is that fascism manages to appeal to the same demographic we are after - young, politically engaged working class people. I see nothing wrong with ideological competition, be it against bourgeois temptations or fascist thuggery.

Take this from an impartial observer: The world does not need Communists to tell them that Right Wing Lunitics are bad. (And it doesn't need Nazis to tell us that Communists are bad.)

The Stormfront guys would happily murder anyone that isn't in agreement with them and the Communists (viz. the Che thread) are happily in agreement with the Nazis on method, but not on policy.

I look at (but don't post at) the Stormfront site now and again--and they aren't anyway so cavalier as the Communists are in killing for the cause.

Am I wrong here?

[RedAnarchist]

WHAT A FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU COMRADER LSD?
On a first sign of what you thaught taht is pointless you say "ooo who gives a fuck"?.You live in a good state by the angle how i see,you have a bunch of good comraders how i see,you didnt see the horror of war and mass graweyards,you didnt feel how it is when imperialists and capitalists using you and your comraders like lab rats,you dont know the sadness of mother who lost own children without reason (do you see this http://youtube.com/watch?v=r74hsAsbqnQ

and you have guts to say that you see that nothing cant change with revolution becouse your oppinion is that nobody give fuck?!?

WAKE UP LSD,imperialists whant you to sleep and that is happening to you know,YOU ARE JUST FAL A SLEEP TO MUTCH and nothing else,
remember the movie of John Carpenter "They live" when in one scene in this movie somebody draw graffiti
THEY LIVE WE SLEEP
just wake up from the fake dream which been created by media who are under controll, and you will find more energy to fight back,becouse imperialists and capitalist whant from you to sleep and sleep and sleep and sleep and sleep and sleep and sleep........












so


























































WAKE UP LSD


Nicely put, Hajduk.

[Tungsten]

This is probably the best post ever.

[Bud Struggle]

This is probably the best post ever.

A boy coming of age to be a man. Nice to see the transition that LSD is making.

[RedAnarchist]

A boy coming of age to be a man. Nice to see the transition that LSD is making.

And you would know how to be mature, right?:rolleyes:

[Bud Struggle]

Sorry. That was unfair. It's Friday and I had a beer or two. :blushing: :D

[edit] Red! You changed your post. :ohmy:

[RedAnarchist]

I think at the moment LSD is very depressed and frustrated, and we should support him, restricted or not.

[Bud Struggle]

I think at the moment LSD is very depressed and frustrated, and we should support him, restricted or not.

That would be fair. Again sorry for my comment.

[RNK]

I think we can do better, we just choose not to.

An important distinction is that it is not us who chooses not to. The decision is made for us and the results forced upon us. But I'm just nit-picking.

[Joby]

Unless of course you're incredibly poor or just making enough money to pay your rent and pay your bills, in which case you can eat and drink, just - and the merry bit will have to come when you go to heaven, right?

Dick!

Not everything in life comes from having money. Most people who are poor are more satisfied with themselves and the world than those who are affluent. Usually, because they don't see the world in the same sense a middle-class college student does. It's just their world, the one that they see eveyday, and they aren't trying to change anything.

Life isn't that important. Really. Eat, drink, and Fuck. It's all we're here for.

****!

[Joby]

WHAT A FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU COMRADER LSD?
On a first sign of what you thaught taht is pointless you say "ooo who gives a fuck"?.You live in a good state by the angle how i see,you have a bunch of good comraders how i see,you didnt see the horror of war and mass graweyards,you didnt feel how it is when imperialists and capitalists using you and your comraders like lab rats,you dont know the sadness of mother who lost own children without reason (do you see this http://youtube.com/watch?v=r74hsAsbqnQ

and you have guts to say that you see that nothing cant change with revolution becouse your oppinion is that nobody give fuck?!?

WAKE UP LSD,imperialists whant you to sleep and that is happening to you know,YOU ARE JUST FAL A SLEEP TO MUTCH and nothing else,
remember the movie of John Carpenter "They live" when in one scene in this movie somebody draw graffiti
THEY LIVE WE SLEEP
just wake up from the fake dream which been created by media who are under controll, and you will find more energy to fight back,becouse imperialists and capitalist whant from you to sleep and sleep and sleep and sleep and sleep and sleep and sleep........












so


























































WAKE UP LSD




Dude, seriously.

Drop your delusions.

THERE IS NO REVOLUTION COMING. It ain't gonna happen. You don't matter in the big scheme, neither does he, neither do I.

We're not important, Stop acting like sitting on an internet forum and debating about the same ideological CRAP is accomplishing.....

ANYTHING!

[The Feral Underclass]

Not everything in life comes from having money. Most people who are poor are more satisfied with themselves and the world than those who are affluent.

This comes from research you've done? Can you show me this evidence you have?


Usually, because they don't see the world in the same sense a middle-class college student does. It's just their world, the one that they see eveyday, and they aren't trying to change anything.

Is this your defence for poverty? That's pretty poor by most standards. In fact, I think I can say that this is probably the most ridiculous argument I've encountered. Poverty is ok because poor people are poor?

Are you not embarrassed?


Life isn't that important.

That's a quantifiable fact, is it? Then you won't mind if someone comes and shoots you in the face then?


Really. Eat, drink, and Fuck. It's all we're here for.

Who is this "we" you're talking about?

[RNK]

Joby is a fucking hippy, he is.

[careyprice31]

I honestly dont believe this joby guy.

Did he have mean pills for break fast or did someone put rusty nails in his cornflakes?

[STI]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joby http://img.revleft.com/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=1086347#post1086347)
Not everything in life comes from having money. Most people who are poor are more satisfied with themselves and the world than those who are affluent.

This comes from research you've done? Can you show me this evidence you have?

Joby's got his facts confused. Happiness is only correlated with income to a point (about $50,000 USD/year), at which point it levels off.

From this we can learn that it's security (ie: not having to fucking worry about money and the future constantly) that matters more than affluence. In a society where that material security would be guaranteed, our happiness would be contingent upon what we make of our lives, not how much we make in our lives.

[Lector Malibu]

A boy coming of age to be a man. Nice to see the transition that LSD is making.

Dude seriously I've been watching your post for awhile now and though you claim to be interested in learning about Marxism, instead you are pushing capitalism. LSD's decision is not some right of passage into manhood. This isn't the fucking boy scouts. Furthermore, questioning America's imperialist capitalism is not a sign of immaturity. If anything it's the other way around.

[Dean]

"Ideologies tend to do more harm than they do good. They tend to blind and to cloak. The left has certainly shed its fair share of blood in the name of spurious ideas."

I am almost 30, and have the same thoughts as LSD.

I really like his post but especially this.

It is certainly true here I find on this board the views are narrow and i am afraid to speak for fear of being restricted. But then I think why are u a wuss; its only a internet board why should i care if i am?

LSD spoke, so shall I.

For example, environmentalists are akin to primitivism, and capitalists and capitalism is bad.

But that is a narrow view to take, I'll tell you why.

I never heard anyone here say anything good about capitalists. its all been bad. But not all humans are alike, not all capitalists are alike. You cant just lump them all into one boat and say they're all****s. There are capitalists who have done good for the world, and there are capitalists who do care about the afflicted and the oppressed. And even though capitalists are greedy their ideas have done good for the world like you might not like Bill Gates and his greed, but you cannot deny the fact he has done good for technology with his computers.

and I read about the poor fellow who got restricted and criticized by someone from RL because he defended his father who worked as a police officer. The person - i dont know who it was - said that cops were ****s therefore his father was one too. Now this fellow didnt even know the guys father. He was just speaking out of a narrow stereotype about cops being jerks because they work for the state. It is a fact that a lot of times poor criminals are treated differently from rich white ones, and all are equal only in theory, but do not believe that all police officers behave like that or even think like that. I do believe in there are good cops out there and they arent all bad.

Anyway, yes ideologies can very very narrow for a world that is much more complex than the ideology allows for. It shows even in this forum where for example, by the time I'd been here a week I could sense the narrowness of the forum. People are way too quick to judge. and to restricted basedf on that judgement.

How can we call ourselves fighters for human rights if we only respected those who agree with us? If we are to learn, first we must listen and open up our ears, and our eyes and our minds to a world far too complex for any narrowmindedness.

I'm not sure if this board will even want me around now. after i said this....I only been here a few weeks.

It is important for people to be communist and still challenge the accepted norms of communists. Not just to keep communism fresh and realistic, but to maintain an understanding of ourselves. That said, I agree that a lot of things here are implied to be black and white, and I am aggravated to see that LSD has lost all his mod priviledges.

[LSD]

I am aggravated to see that LSD has lost all his mod priviledges.

Don't be.

I am neither surprised, nor do I begrudge the decision. It really wouldn't have made sense for a non-revolutionary to hold authority on a website with Revolutionary right in its fucking name! I don't know if I'm going to hang around OI, but who knows, it might be interesting to see what it looks like from this side of the fence! :D

So ...what do we evil cappies do for fun? When do we all get together and plan the downfall of the working class? I'll bring the nachos!

[Bilan]

This thread just makes me hate 'capitalists' and middle class intellectuals even more.
LSD, the last quote from you in the CC has made me lose all respect I had for you.
Any fuck who supports the alienation, suffering, imprisonment, oppression, exploitation and disempowerment of the working class, or should I say, the mass of the world population; the poor; the peasants; most of the world, is an absolutely selfish, worthless human beings, who, quite evidently, is so detached from the realities of capitalism - most likely, middle or upper class white kid, who probably has never worked a full day in his life - that they feel inclined to stand upon a supporting platform in support of said system.
Such a person is either mentally unstable, confused, or just plain fucking stupid.

Maybe from your privileged position in the wealthiest nation state in the world, which keeps much of the poor across the world suffering and in chains, you don't see, or realize just what the realities are. Not the theoretical realities of the 1800's outlined by Marx (and so on), but the present realities of capitalism, the physical realities.
But we do. The rest of us do. And you're a fucking arsehole to insult us all, and more, those who suffer to larger extent then the rest of us.

[black magick hustla]

relax chup!

[LSD]

LSD, the last quote from you in the CC has made me lose all respect I had for you.

I think you might have missed the context of that quote. I never stated that I "support imprisonment, oppression, exploitation and disempowerment", what I said was that, for the time being, capitalism is the only workable solution and unfortunately that nescesitates a degree of exploitation and disempowerment.

Anything that can be done to minimize the negative aspects of capitalism should, of course, be fully supported. And I remain as committed as ever to unionization and workers' rights.

A world without suffering is a wonderful dream, but it just isn't achievable, not yet anyway. There's a reason that after 5,000 years of human civilization, we're still not living in utopia. We'll get there one day, but we're still a very long way away. And after 150 years of constant failure, you'd think we'd have learned that Marxism is no shortcut.

As for my post in the CC, I might have been somewhat curt, but I was trying to be as explicit as possible in my dissavowal of revolutionary politics. I hope the context, however, will clarify that I was in no way defending suffering:





As for the question of your importance here. Can you answer a simple question, despite your disillusionment, do you still favour the overthrow of capitalism?

I don't know that I can actually answer that question. I still believe that capitalism can and must eventually be replaced; but at the present time, no, I think capitalism is both nescessary and unavoidable. I think that as long as scarcity is an issue, there needs to be a market of some sort and there needs to be a check on the power of the state.

Now, it's possible that someone might come up with a viable alternative tomorrow that adresses all my concerns and if so, I'd favour its immediate implementation. But as it stands, no such option has been constructed.

What Marxism and anarchism and the rest of the revolutionary left propose is just far too vague and much too idealistic. Hate to say it, but the social democrats have at the very least presented a reasonable case. You haven't.

So you accept the continued exploitation, disempowerment, oppression and alienation of the working class is a "reasonable case"?


Yes.

[INDK]

I personally think LSD's concerns are very valid; the Left movement is really not getting anywhere and I despise that. I enjoyed reading this thread in the Soviet-Empire:

Pessimism and Apathy (http://www.soviet-empire.com/ussr/viewtopic.php?t=43676)

I haven't given up hope that Capitalism will meet its end though; probably not in my lifetime, but if we all give up here the future generations will not be able to. We build the foundation, I think. I do have a question though; why, LSD, at a Leninist meeting did you develop these feelings, as I have seen more than once you had already not put much stock in the revolutionary potential of the Leninists. I mean, as far as I know you are (or were, as the case may be) an Anarchist - and I identify as one as well. The Anarchist movement inspires me to keep believing, we're the ones fighting for the 8 hour day, holding hands in the streets :cool: we're the ones with the faces covered by bandanas, we're the ones the riot cops chase down. Whoever they vote for, we are ungovernable. It keeps me going sometimes. I definitely acknowledge the Left needs a fire under it's ass pronto though. For instance, I got myself a warm, fuzzy feeling when Debora Aro told us all about how hard she's been working to help Rs2k, and how alot of members here helped out. I think we have comradeship and a level of unity, perhaps not as the Left, but maybe as Anarchists - I address this to you, LSD, and the other Anarchists - and we all know the movement has bugs. I don't lose hope... I don't want to lose hope. To think Capitalism will just grow into Imperialism and Fascism and keep milking the working class like a cow is fucking scary. I'm just venting though...

[Bilan]

I think you might have missed the context of that quote. I never stated that I "support imprisonment, oppression, exploitation and disempowerment", what I said was that, for the time being, capitalism is the only workable solution and unfortunately that nescesitates a degree of exploitation and disempowerment.

That is a petty cop out, and you know it.
Capitalism is not the only workable solution. This, you know, is being completely dishonest, and sounds more like burn out than an honest, rational and backed opinion.



Anything that can be done to minimize the negative aspects of capitalism should, of course, be fully supported. And I remain as committed as ever to unionization and workers' rights.

Within the existing system?



A world without suffering is a wonderful dream, but it just isn't achievable, not yet anyway. There's a reason that after 5,000 years of human civilization, we're still not living in utopia. We'll get there one day, but we're still a very long way away. And after 150 years of constant failure, you'd think we'd have learned that Marxism is no shortcut.

There are people who still think the earth is flat, too.
But this, again, is making excuses.
One does not need to be Marxist to offer a solution to capitalism. Nor is Marxism a necessarily correct 'shortcut'.
Nor has Marxism correctly been applied.

The same goes for all revolutionary political tendencies.

The point is, that all struggles - from Russia, to Spain, to Korea, to Cuba, to China, to Vietnam, etc. - are a lesson to be learnt from, not a reason for abandonment.

A world without suffering is something worth struggling toward.
And if not completely without suffering, without a socioeconomic system which feeds off our suffering.

In my eyes, what you said was a direct insult to all of us.
It was like saying, suffer. Deal with it. You can't change it. You're just not worth that much.
The only thing that's not worth our time is a statement like that.

I don't want to, and will not accept, that we have to wait 1000's of years, years that none of us will see, for some ridiculous future world.Better worlds are not created from thin air, nor are they created 'by history' or 'in the future'. What is in the future is what we create. The ground work for the future is laid by us.
Because, the people of the world, those of us who create the foundations on which they rule upon - who built every factory,build every road, who mine every mine, Drive every truck and train, plow every field - are just that important.

And LSD, I apologize if I appear hostile.

[MarxSchmarx]

The Stormfront guys would happily murder anyone that isn't in agreement with them and the Communists (viz. the Che thread) are happily in agreement with the Nazis on method, but not on policy.

I look at (but don't post at) the Stormfront site now and again--and they aren't anyway so cavalier as the Communists are in killing for the cause.

Am I wrong here?

Yes, you are.

Who ever said anything about killing anybody? Don't put words in my mouth.

In so far as:

The world does not need Communists to tell them that Right Wing Lunitics are badIt is a historical fact that no group has fought the extreme-right like the left. In fact, "moderate conservatives" like Henry Ford were all quite comfortable with fascism. When fascism was ascendant, only the left sounded the alarm.

Moreover, fascism shares much in common with mainstream bourgeois ideologies. Both view the world as a fundamentally dangerous place. Both view human nature as largely fixed. Both view humans as essentially egotistical, in need of external prodding to do anything decent. Both view hierarchical authority over other people as foundational, be it of the volkstat over humanity, or the property owner over the non-owner. That is why the left needs to keep the bourgeois politicians honest when it comes to fascism.

Indeed,



This new far right certainly doesn't call itself fascists and certainly doesn't come from the same place that fascists came from. It usually comes out of mainstream Conservatism or occasioanlly liberalism. It is exemplified by Jorg Haider in Austria, Felip Dewimter in Belgium, Gelert Wilders in the Netherlands, UKIP in Britain and so forth. The left has had various degrees of success in noticing it, and protesting against it, but has largely allowed it to develop because it is too caught up in its play fight against the remnants of old fascism to notice the rise of the newe far right.

Which is fair enough. I'll add that the leftist opposition to this new right comes out of comparable sentiments that motivate antifa activism. I agree that how well the ire that's currently directed to "old fascism" can successfully be channeled to fight the new right is an open question.

It is a historical accident that fascism has been such a PR disaster that most mainstream right-wingers shy away from it. But scratch a conservative and you find a fascist. Without the left calling the soft-fascists like American Republicans (much less the BNP) on their bullshit, non-leftists would sooner look the other way.

More on topic.

Comrade LSD:
When the going gets tough, just remember this. We are the movement that has captured the hearts and minds of millions of people in basically every country in the world for the last 150 years. And we've been doing it by appealing to people's best instincts.

We must be doing something right.

[KC]

Your dumb

[Marsella]

Your dumb

You're dumb?

Fucking idiot. :lol:

[Bilan]

Zampano, who are you talking too?

[Tungsten]

Joby's got his facts confused. Happiness is only correlated with income to a point (about $50,000 USD/year), at which point it levels off.

From this we can learn that it's security (ie: not having to fucking worry about money and the future constantly) that matters more than affluence. In a society where that material security would be guaranteed, our happiness would be contingent upon what we make of our lives, not how much we make in our lives.
Haven't you noticed something? We already have that- we've got the welfare state. Material security is guaranteed by right.

Why is everyone therefore not happy?


This thread just makes me hate 'capitalists' and middle class intellectuals even more.
LSD, the last quote from you in the CC has made me lose all respect I had for you.

Any fuck who supports the alienation, suffering, imprisonment, oppression, exploitation and disempowerment of the working class, or should I say, the mass of the world population; the poor; the peasants; most of the world, is an absolutely selfish, worthless human beings, who, quite evidently, is so detached from the realities of capitalism - most likely, middle or upper class white kid, who probably has never worked a full day in his life - that they feel inclined to stand upon a supporting platform in support of said system.
Yes, of course only you and the chosen ones can see the realities of capitalism; the rest of us must obviously be blind and must therefore be herded into utopia because we don't know what's good for us.

Don't you get it? It's precisely this kind of evangelical immaturity/utopian lunacy that put him off in the first place.

Maybe from your privileged position in the wealthiest nation state in the world, which keeps much of the poor across the world suffering and in chains, you don't see, or realize just what the realities are. Not the theoretical realities of the 1800's outlined by Marx (and so on), but the present realities of capitalism, the physical realities.
What's the hell is a theoretical reality?

[KC]

Zampano, who are you talking too?

LSD

Duh!

[Nakidana]

Overall I think this is a good post because it brings out the doubt that every sane revolutionary socialist or communist feels at some point in time.

I'm far from 30 but I know I've been feeling the same way many times.

The way I see it though is this: Something is fucking wrong with the current system, when every party generally supportive of the free market (With varying degrees of restrictions), vote FOR the invasion and occupation of a foreign country.

I mean shouldn't we be past that stage? Shouldn't people be looking back a couple of decades and realize the utter failure and human misery imperialism brings? So if capitalism with restriction is so great how come we still got people in power making these shitty decisions?

How come the parties supportive of capitalism with restriction still have racist and islamophobic tendencies?

The fact of the matter is that something is wrong with capitalism and atm the only alternative put forward has been communism, which, in theory, doesn't sound bad.

And finally remember that; "It's better to fight for what you want and fail than to fight for what you don't want...and still fail."



Comrade LSD:
When the going gets tough, just remember this. We are the movement that has captured the hearts and minds of millions of people in basically every country in the world for the last 150 years. And we've been doing it by appealing to people's best instincts.

We must be doing something right.

Damn right.

EDIT: Bah, LSD has just thrown me into revolutionary depression. This will take me the rest of the day to get over. Thanks a lot LSD! :(

[RNK]

I feel like that a lot of time -- what hope is there to actually change anything? Maybe we're at the best place we can be for the time being.. I just want to go home and stop fighting!"

Tell that to the billions of people starving to death, or subjected to the most pitiful existence imaginable, blooded and exploited beyond anything in your worst nightmares. I'm sure they'd love for it to stop. I'm sure they'd love to sit down and relax and not have to worry about anything. I'm sure the tens of thousands of kids orphaned every day would enjoy a cold drink, a nice comfy chair, and a bit of "me" time.

Ignore the dialectics, the intellectual posturing and dellusions of granduer for a minute. We all know what your statement really means -- capitalism is the best you can do. There are two billion people out there who don't have that choice, and you've just turned your back on them.

[Louis Pio]

Hmm LSD I find it a bit funny you turning into a Social Democrat in this day and age were the Social Democrats are actually dismantling the wellfare state.

[Forward Union]

A boy coming of age to be a man. Nice to see the transition that LSD is making.

No it's a middle-class well off intellectual whos finished uni and had enough playing revolutionary. He had a great theoretical understanding of lefty politics but never quite grasped what they meant in real life.

Elderly people die all the time because their pensions can't afford proper heating, kids die form easily curable illnesses the world over. People starve to death everyday while tons of food is dumped in the sea to make the remaining stock more valuable. All this while we know for sure, that only 4% of the wealth, of the richest 200 people could pay for the universal healthcare of the entire planet. And this is just a tiny dot of the massive attrocity that is capitalism, that effects ME everyday, as well as everyone else.

If you're not pissed off you're not paying attention.

The fact is LSD never actually looked at the struggles in the real world and drew his conclusions from them, he learnt it in books and on the internet. The fact that represson happened in such and such a palce was an academic fact he could use in his essays. This is why he can still come out -10 - 10 on the poltical compass, because in his intellecual mind he still agrees with the stuff.

There are other people here I know wont be in 5 years, but that's how it goes.

[Awful Reality]

And that, my friends, is the revolutionary vanguard of the proletariat. A bunch of lonlely deluded idealists sitting around in a backroom dreaming Russian dreams that died seventy years ago.


No, that's modern, mainstream "communism," AKA social democracy with a humane face.

[Awful Reality]

No it's a middle-class well off intellectual whos finished uni and had enough playing revolutionary. He had a great theoretical understanding of lefty politics but never quite grasped what they meant in real life.

Elderly people die all the time because their pensions can't afford proper heating, kids die form easily curable illnesses the world over. People starve to death everyday while tons of food is dumped in the sea to make the remaining stock more valuable. All this while we know for sure, that only 4% of the wealth, of the richest 200 people could pay for the universal healthcare of the entire planet. And this is just a tiny dot of the massive attrocity that is capitalism, that effects ME everyday, as well as everyone else.

If you're not pissed off you're not paying attention.

The fact is LSD never actually looked at the struggles in the real world and drew his conclusions from them, he learnt it in books and on the internet. The fact that represson happened in such and such a palce was an academic fact he could use in his essays. This is why he can still come out -10 - 10 on the poltical compass, because in his intellecual mind he still agrees with the stuff.

There are other people here I know wont be in 5 years, but that's how it goes.

Agreed.

It's the fact that there is still this cool, punk, "hip" aura surrounding Marxism that makes it unattractive, that real Marxist theory is associated with teenagers in Che tee-shirts that makes people afraid of it, and these fake college intellectuals majoring in Art History who sit in internet cafes throwing dollar after dollar at baristas can go fuck themselves, to be frank. Lenin called this "the measles of the left," that there's something about Marxism that attracts itself especially to students and youth. The fakers like LSD feel like they socially need to take part in that.

Go be homeless for a month, just a month, LSD, and maybe your views will change.

Nobody should truly be a communist until they've experienced the horrors of capitalism. I have, and I like to think that most of the members of this community have.

[careyprice31]

"Don't be.

I am neither surprised, nor do I begrudge the decision. It really wouldn't have made sense for a non-revolutionary to hold authority on a website with Revolutionary right in its fucking name! I don't know if I'm going to hang around OI, but who knows, it might be interesting to see what it looks like from this side of the fence! :D

So ...what do we evil cappies do for fun? When do we all get together and plan the downfall of the working class? I'll bring the nachos"

Thanks a lot LSD.

For 24 hours, since i read your post yesterday, I thought u were a genuinely thinking adult who would have been thinking about narrow mindedness among probably the particular leftists you wrote about, and still hate the society. Now today, I get on, you're restricted, and saying now u accept society is basically what you say now. In my opinion true thinking peoples will always question today's society. Now you're accepting it? Wtf?

Sounds like its no longer about narrow mindedness among both capitalism and revolutionaries anymore, its about u accepting the status quo. For a moment I thought I had found someone like myself thinking about simply narrow mindedness. But seems like its not that at all and my hopes are dashed.

so much for that.

Wonderful system we have. When my father was 29 he had two children, my older bro and me, to raise and he had to find a job quickly. He dropped out of university and for the past thirty six years had towork at a job he hated to raise his family. The system wouldnt allow him to quit because if he quit thered be no money. He couldnt go to university cause he worked all day everyday. He couldnt find another job because he was unskilled at lots of other things. He was forced to sacrifice his happiness for us. What kind of a society is that, I will have a good life but my father spent his in depression. If the system was different my father could have been able to have both happiness and the well being of his family.

I knew some univ students I went to univ with who have $80,000 in tuition to payy off. No joke. And they still young, hardly more than rookies, with a debt like that.

Women are being mind controlled to think that body hair.....normal and natural for all mammals......is somehow wrong. On them that is. But on a man its ok because they have a penis. (I have tried both depilating and being natural. And may I say, that when i didnt depilate i felt so liberated from this gender double standard its such a great feeling ! I dont depilate now and I get condemned by everyone for not doing it. I pay no attention of course. They have been corrupted by mind benders and mind fuckers.)

You like this? Would u think something like this is funny?

http://www.theindependent.ca/printfriendly.asp?id=1109

That just happened a few days ago, not very far away from where I live actually. I suppose you would accept this as well?

[Forward Union]

Lenin called this "the measles of the left,"

Right but don't forget that Lenin was a uni student Really, there's nothing wrong with working class kids trying to get a better education. The point is that if that's where your politics comes from then it's almost, dare I say, a religious conviction, and you'll likely grow out of it.

I work for the NHS, but to be honest I'd like to go to uni next year.

[RNK]

Like Wat said, it would appear LSD never really experienced any of the things he's learned. Without practical experience, when one simply observes a thing from a distance, you don't get a very deep understanding of it.

But I'm still like you Svetlana :( I still question the dogmatism and inffectiveness of the leftist movement!

[careyprice31]

Like Wat said, it would appear LSD never really experienced any of the things he's learned. Without practical experience, when one simply observes a thing from a distance, you don't get a very deep understanding of it.

But I'm still like you Svetlana :( I still question the dogmatism and inffectiveness of the leftist movement!

why the frown? NEVER frown!! It is never a bad thing to question and seek. In fact it shows intelligence and understanding.

There are things about certain leftists, and they make themselves their own worst enemies and turn people away from leftism, not toward it. Thats never a bad thing to question.:)

[Sankofa]

Did anyone read my post on the first page of this thread? :(



I wonder if your disenchantment and analysis of Communism is exclusive to the first world countries only?

Having had similar thoughts; it's obvious that people in the first world won't achieve class consciousness anytime soon, regrettable, but a fact that must be accepted.

If we intend to simply ride the capitalist treadmill hoping that sometime the situation will magically change, with out any outside actions, why even waste our time?

It's in my opinion, the only real future for socialism is the Third World. It only makes sense; they are the super-exploited. For them, waiting around for capitalism to simply die of a miracle, or old age just isn't an option.

Why don't comrades here actively support their revolutions? Our reaction has to be something other than mass criticism based petty guidelines, information obtained from bourgeois sources or empty solidarity.

Why don't we take it a step further; go out and take an active part in the struggle? (Yes, I'm talking to myself too.)

Can we really change thing by simply debating theory in our capitalist backyard? Does our non-action mean we're simply "fake" idealists and therefore, Have we ourselves contributed to the domination of capitalism by our apathy to do anything worth while about it?

This isn't an attack towards anyone; merely my expansion of LSD's thoughts. I'll be the first to admit, I'm not as intellectually advanced about all things communist as many posters on these boards, but this is my perspective.

Does Socialism stand a better chance if more comrades took a more progressive approach; even if it means leaving comfortable settings in our respective countries where revolution is no where in sight, and taking part in revolutions that are currently taking place?

I thought I had some decent insight into this situation.

Anybody have thoughts?

[RNK]

I frowned because I was overlooked! :P

And I largely agree, Yonkers. It's bad enough that a large portion of the revolutionary leftist community are doing far too little in their own countries to carry out a revolutonary movement; it's worse that so fucking many refuse to support progressive movements throughout the rest of the world that are actually fighting the system. Case in point, Marxist-Leninist-Maoists are at the forefront of physical struggle for progressive revolution throughout the world and comrades from Peru to Nepal to the Philippines have given the ultimate sacrifice (their lives) for this revolution -- only to have chauvinistic idealists in the first world who don't know the first thing about revolutionary experience denounce them as hooligans and thugs.

[KC]

I think it's important to realize that what LSD has gone through isn't simple disillusionment or burnout. This is something that he has always believed and just repressed.

I see no reason why we should give him any "respect" for that or try to "empathize" with him or "justify" or "rationalize" his conversion (which really wasn't a conversion).

This is who he's always been, as is shown by his past stance as an "academic Marxist" and his lack of involvement in the struggle.

[Yazman]

WHAT A FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU COMRADER LSD?
On a first sign of what you thaught taht is pointless you say "ooo who gives a fuck"?.You live in a good state by the angle how i see,you have a bunch of good comraders how i see,you didnt see the horror of war and mass graweyards,you didnt feel how it is when imperialists and capitalists using you and your comraders like lab rats,you dont know the sadness of mother who lost own children without reason (do you see this http://youtube.com/watch?v=r74hsAsbqnQ

and you have guts to say that you see that nothing cant change with revolution becouse your oppinion is that nobody give fuck?!?

WAKE UP LSD,imperialists whant you to sleep and that is happening to you know,YOU ARE JUST FAL A SLEEP TO MUTCH and nothing else,
remember the movie of John Carpenter "They live" when in one scene in this movie somebody draw graffiti
THEY LIVE WE SLEEP
just wake up from the fake dream which been created by media who are under controll, and you will find more energy to fight back,becouse imperialists and capitalist whant from you to sleep and sleep and sleep and sleep and sleep and sleep and sleep........












so


























































WAKE UP LSD




I agree, this is nicely put.

It's quite obvious, as Hajduk has stated, that LSD is clearly happily living a comfortable middle class life in a rich country else he wouldn't be talking such pathetic naive childish crap.

Wake the fuck up! Capitalism has now reached a point where it needs to annihilate entire countries in order to sustain itself (See: Iraq), people are dieing in the streets and being fucking clusterbombed and napalmed to death while you sit there saying nobody gives a fuck about change.

[Nakidana]

I think it's important to realize that what LSD has gone through isn't simple disillusionment or burnout. This is something that he has always believed and just repressed.

I see no reason why we should give him any "respect" for that or try to "empathize" with him or "justify" or "rationalize" his conversion (which really wasn't a conversion).

This is who he's always been, as is shown by his past stance as an "academic Marxist" and his lack of involvement in the struggle.

Hmm, I don't know, I think the thoughts he had are thoughts we've all had at some point.

It just seems like the thought process went "overboard" as he was confronted with a bunch of inactive idealists. So instead of coping with it in a critical way (e.g. raise his voice and criticise the idealism) he took the simple route of "fuck it, I'm outta here".

I mean if in reality you're pretty well off, and you haven't ever been to a third world country, then it can be pretty hard to imagine why you as a person should care.

At least that's the attitude I've come across. They simply don't give a fuck. "Yeah it sucks, but we can't do anything about it so fuck it".

[Publius]

All you're doing is proving his point.

You think that by pretending to change things ("We're gonna get out there and destroy capitalism RIGHT NOW!") you're actually doing something other than jerking yourself off. But you aren't. None is saying we don't like the rhetoric -- I like that rhetoric. But the fact that you think it means anything says plenty about your delusion. Look at the facts:

The workers are not organized. Anywhere. Anywhere in the world, there is no large-scale organized working class.

A lot of workers in the industrialized west don't want to get rid of capitalism. Why? Well, if all the wealth in the world were distributed equally, as is, everyone would have about $7,000, or a little over. That's a paycut of over 400% to the average Westerner. When you say that a communist revolution would help the working class, you're right in the detail: It'd drastically help 4 or 5 billion people. But it would also drastically hurt about 1 billion or more too. This is assuming liquidity of wealth, which actually isn't possible. Most wealth is tied up in objects, which can't be as easily distributed, but that's more a point against you than for you.

But notice that even in the third world there's no massive impetus for communist revolution. A few wanna-be revolutionaries sloganeering on the internet does not make a revolution, and it's really pretty funny that you think it does: You REALLY THINK that you're doing something on this website, or by going to some protest rally, or by writing about "dialectics." Well, you aren't. Look at the protests we had against the Iraq war: Largest protests ever held. Didn't make a damn bit of difference. Everyone could have stayed home and not a single damn thing would have changed. But you know what? You're doing less than that now, ergo, you're doing less than nothing.



Wake the fuck up! Capitalism has now reached a point where it needs to annihilate entire countries in order to sustain itself (See: Iraq), people are dieing in the streets and being fucking clusterbombed and napalmed to death while you sit there saying nobody gives a fuck about change.

Yes. AND HE'S RIGHT. I want to repeat this to yourself until you get it: THERE IS NOTHING YOU CAN DO TO CHANGE THINGS. NOTHING. NAH-THING.

Now, what do I mean by that? Do I mean things will never change? No. They will. Things always change. But they won't change because some internet revolutionary really wanted, extra hard, for them to change. Do I mean that I support the current system? No. I'm against it in nearly every way.

Look at some of the shit you're posting: "lack of involvement in the struggle." What struggle?! There is no struggle between you (collectively) and 'capitalism'. How do I know this? Because you aren't dead. Think about that. If capitalists really thought, for a second, that you could do a god damn thing to affect them in any way, you wouldn't be allowed to.

They invaded Iraq, didn't they? So then why wouldn't they silence you? Umm...? No, the reason you can say what you want is precisely because what you say doesn't matter. They've never heard of you. None's heard of you. I never see "the struggle." I guess when I went to an Obama rally I saw a hippy girl wearing a dirty shall, with unkempt hair, reading "Food not Bombs" and writing illegable peace slogans on the sidewalk with her chalk. That's "the struggle", isn't it? That's the ideal, right? That's how you're going to get capitalism, I guess?

Because that's the most you're doing right now. I mean, how many boxes of ammunition do you have stockpiled for the revolution, should it start tommorow? What battles plans have you formulated? What would you attack first? How would you stop the planes, the tanks, the missiles? How much of this have and your comrades planned out?

See? You don't believe there's going to be a revolution either, at least anytime soon (in your life.) The only difference between you and me is that you pretend there is.

So anyway, good luck with the revolution, and wake me up when it starts. It should be a real riot.

[Yazman]

Hmm, I don't know, I think the thoughts he had are thoughts we've all had at some point.

I've never had thoughts like that before.

[Bud Struggle]

Go be homeless for a month, just a month, LSD, and maybe your views will change.

Interesting. Last year I had a friend who became homeless--we took him in and he lived with my family for about a month. He was a salesman, and he lost his job with his company and had a string of four or five jobs each worse than the last. He had exhausted his credit was unable to pay his rent. He lived with my family till he found a good job and get on his feet.

His goal the entire time was to get out of the mess he put himself in and buy a BMW. He has his own apartment now and is still a long way from the BMW, but he took ownership for his failures and mistakes--he never blamed society or anyone else for screwing up. I think that's a more commendable course of action than blaming "society" for all one's troubles. :engles:

[Nakidana]

I've never had thoughts like that before.

You've never had any doubts? Never been depressed? Never felt like giving it up when people around you just didn't seem to give a fuck?

Seriously though that's quite commendable. I wish I was the one to walk around in a daze of infinite revolutionary happiness. ;)

[Yazman]

Yes. AND HE'S RIGHT. I want to repeat this to yourself until you get it: THERE IS NOTHING YOU CAN DO TO CHANGE THINGS. NOTHING. NAH-THING.
This is only true when you adopt that position. Of course if you do nothing then nothing can be changed. On any level, whether it's politics or not - if you believe you can change nothing then you really do nothing, and nothing ever actually changes.

A few years ago I was the only traceur (a traceur is a person who practices parkour) I knew of in my city and I practiced for about six months, for the first three months I was alone every single second of my training sessions until I got a friend interested by showing him vaults, wallruns, etc. Then after six months or so we went to a capital city with a friend. He was going to a concert and we ended up just hanging around the city and doing parkour, well we accidentally met the clan that is very active in that city, they are large and have a hell of a lot of people.

In our first six months in our city people would constantly suggest to us, "why don't you change things, why don't you build an organisation?", "why don't you get more people, why don't you get media attention, get a name and then make it popular?" Well at that point in time when it came to parkour and organising, we had already adopted your position.

It took a LOT of encouragement from the guys in that capital city's clan we met before we even considered thinking about trying to build something in our city. Eventually we met somebody else who was like us and we ended up heeding the words of those guys in the capital city.
Speed things forward three years. Now we have an official city clan, we have official clan shirts, we have made links with national associations, we have media exposure every other month (our last one was a full-blown article accompanied by a two-page photo spread in the most popular newspaper of the city) and we have a large, growing membership.

If we had of kept our idea that "we can't change anything" and decided to "just wait because it will inevitably change," well buddy - nothing would ever have happened. That's my point - if you take the ignorant position of "inevitable change" and the idea that "we can't change anything so let's do nothing", well then your belief becomes true. By believing you can't do anything and subsequently doing nothing - nothing happens.

But if you do what I did, if you have an idea and you're dedicated enough then with time and with enough effort you can get organised with people who share your vision. That's what the traceurs of my clan, Liberation Parkour, did and it started with one man. I managed to change my entire city's parkour scene and all that - all the shirts, the national associations, the constant media coverage, the weekly gatherings and jams, all the members, all the activity - none of it would ever have happened if it wasn't for my belief that I could change things.

The same thing goes with every facet of life - the only time it's impossible for you to change anything is if you adopt the position that YOU, and LSD, are advocating.

**EDIT**

Sorry, it wasn't paragraphed properly. ALSO:


You've never had any doubts? Never been depressed? Never felt like giving it up when people around you just didn't seem to give a fuck?

Seriously though that's quite commendable. I wish I was the one to walk around in a daze of infinite revolutionary happiness.You've never had any doubts? Never been depressed? Never felt like giving it up when people around you just didn't seem to give a fuck?

Seriously though that's quite commendable. I wish I was the one to walk around in a daze of infinite revolutionary happiness.

Well I do get really fucking enraged sometimes but never doubtful or depressive about my politics and I've never felt like giving up. When people around me don't seem to give a fuck I don't let it affect me, I usually just dismiss them as apathetic morons who need to get some life experience and if they don't care about politics then I talk to them about something else. Just about everybody I have ever met who is really fucking dedicated has gone through some sort of terrible shit. If you live a comfortable middle-class delusion your whole life then you never really feel anything politically significant.

[careyprice31]

in that.

Go be homeless for a month, just a month, LSD, and maybe your views will change.

.

um how will that change how he thinks. Think about it. He'll be homeless for one month. But, he still has the knowledge he can return to a home after one month. No, a person would have to truly be a homeless person, living with the knowldge that he is unlikely ever to escape the system and his future is uncertain.

See what i mean?

[BurnTheOliveTree]

capitalism is the only workable solution and unfortunately that nescesitates a degree of exploitation and disempowerment.

A degree of exploitation and disempowerment. A degree? A fucking degree? Open your eyes! The vast majority of the world is exploited, and the vast majority of the world is utterly disempowered. Why do you suddenly not care? What has happened to you to make you able to turn a blind eye to that?


Anything that can be done to minimize the negative aspects of capitalism should, of course, be fully supported. And I remain as committed as ever to unionization and workers' rights.

Good to see you've not completely lost it, but why do you want those negative aspects there at all, even if they're near-enough minimised by welfare? It's not good for the soul to live on state handout when other people aren't, IMO. Why do you suddenly not think an alternative will work? Why won't our economic system work if we co-operate rather than fight? What, directly, is your argument?


A world without suffering is a wonderful dream, but it just isn't achievable, not yet anyway.

I won't quibble with you about how achievable it is or not, but why do you want to stop fighting for it? What has happened that makes you think because eliminating the world's suffering is a monumental pipe-dream (and it is, of course it is) that we should give up on it? We can't lose, ultimately, even if we never get there, we'll get far along the way, and that is good for the world. What has inspired all this apathy? t'is baffling, I say. :)


There's a reason that after 5,000 years of human civilization, we're still not living in utopia.

Yup, so giving up is definitely the answer. lol.


We'll get there one day, but we're still a very long way away.

Why? This is just silly. "oh, we'll sort the world out tomorrow". Not to be overly emotive, and I expect all you OIers will seize on this as soft quasi-religious reasoning, but there really are people dying unnecessarily, because of capitalism, that wouldn't with socialism. No amount of your pessimism is ever going to be a good reason to just give up on these people.




And after 150 years of constant failure, you'd think we'd have learned that Marxism is no shortcut.

Perhaps this is a valid point, but you need to develop it. The OIers have tried, I've never seen an impressive argument that marxism's "failures" are down to the theory rather than other factors.

And in any case, this is not a good reason to just give up. If marxism isn't the way forward, what is? We all have a lot of admiration for you man, you're probably better equipped to answer that question than most, but this whole attitude of sulking about our shortcomings as a movement and therefore just pissing off and forgetting about all the problems in the world is... juvenile, I think.

There you go, anyway, that's my two cents. Try not to think about all that starvation and curable disease goin' on. :(

-Alex

[Green Dragon]

LSD's main objection seems to be that socialism/communism/anarchism does not think about socialism/communism/anarchism. It thinks about capitalism. It rejects it and concludes that therefore something better must be out there.

And then they go out for the beers.

That is all that it is.

[Lector Malibu]

Agreed.

It's the fact that there is still this cool, punk, "hip" aura surrounding Marxism that makes it unattractive, that real Marxist theory is associated with teenagers in Che tee-shirts that makes people afraid of it, and these fake college intellectuals majoring in Art History who sit in internet cafes throwing dollar after dollar at baristas can go fuck themselves, to be frank. Lenin called this "the measles of the left," that there's something about Marxism that attracts itself especially to students and youth. The fakers like LSD feel like they socially need to take part in that.

Go be homeless for a month, just a month, LSD, and maybe your views will change.

Nobody should truly be a communist until they've experienced the horrors of capitalism. I have, and I like to think that most of the members of this community have.

This is a good post, I don't know about anybody else but I actually have been homeless and I'm not talking about a teenage road trip for the summer. I was homeless on the streets of New Orleans with no one to bail me out.

[RNK]

but he took ownership for his failures and mistakes--he never blamed society or anyone else for screwing up.

All that proves is that your friend is as gullible as a fucking Jehovah's witness who is resigned to their fate and the material situation of their existence and goes through life thinking only what they can do to lessen the impact of all the obstacles for personal freedom that capitalism has created. He's simply come to accept it and is stupid enough to believe that this is how things 'should be' because he doesn't have the sense to look outside of the tiny box of his own life. He's no more than a fish resigned to its life in the fish bowl.

[Awful Reality]

um how will that change how he thinks. Think about it. He'll be homeless for one month. But, he still has the knowledge he can return to a home after one month. No, a person would have to truly be a homeless person, living with the knowldge that he is unlikely ever to escape the system and his future is uncertain.

See what i mean?

Very good point. But what I'm saying is that he has never, to any degree, experienced what capitalism is. And all it would take is one small, insignificant experience to maybe open his eyes a little.

[careyprice31]

Very good point. But what I'm saying is that he has never, to any degree, experienced what capitalism is. And all it would take is one small, insignificant experience to maybe open his eyes a little.

Do you know he hasn't, i mean, for sure? Do any of you know him, to know this for a fact that he hasn't?

I'm just writing this in case someobody is conclusion jumping like a flea on a hot stove without even knowing LSD.

Now I agree with LSD in his long letter, dont get me wrong, its sad that a group of people just chat for a little while about it and then go have a bear. without doing anything. Im pretty positive this helped turn him off. Hell, when i was involved in leftist groups we actually did things. Protests and rallies and stuff. we did things to attempt influence.

some of our group went to the anti FTAA rally in Quebec in, what was it, 2001? and got arrested by police. I didnt go. But we had our own rally for that day down in Newfoundland, to support the rally up in Quebec. I helped in it with everything.

[spartan]

If anything he just sounds a little bit depressed and tired of the same old shit, and i cant say i blame him, but i dont think that it is worth giving up your basic fundamental beliefs over it.

Just take a break from it all and reevaluate your stance on the situation in the world.

[Lector Malibu]

I guess I'm from the school of thought LSD how can you switch back after knowing what you know. Really?

[Dr Mindbender]

i also grow more disillusioned with the status quo every day, but it strengthens my communistic beliefs, not diminishes them.

Just because capitalism has become like a runaway freight train doesnt make it anymore 'acceptable' or 'right'. Past failures of socialism does not disprove it, it merely proves it cannot co-exist with global capitalism.

The capitalists may laugh at us now, but so did other reactiionary naysayers from centuries of yore. Da Vinci and Galilleo had their anti-science theists, as we have our lassaiz faire economists and free-marketeers,
As with the former, who was proved right in the end? History is on our side.

[Lector Malibu]

i also grow more disillusioned with the status quo every day, but it strengthens my communistic beliefs, not diminishes them.

Just because capitalism has become like a runaway freight train doesnt make it anymore 'acceptable' or 'right'. Past failures of socialism does not disprove it, it merely proves it cannot co-exist with global capitalism,

The capitalists may laugh at us now, but so did other reactiionary naysayers from centuries of yore. Da Vinci and Galilleo had their anti-science theists, as we have our lassaiz faire economists and free-marketeers,
As with the former, who was proved right in the end? History is on our side,

Well said comrade and a quote from Che:

“If you tremble indignation at every injustice then you are a comrade of mine.”

People can say what they want but at the end of the day I know that I stood for something and my comrades have stood by me. That's worth fighting for

[Zurdito]

Agreed.

It's the fact that there is still this cool, punk, "hip" aura surrounding Marxism that makes it unattractive, that real Marxist theory is associated with teenagers in Che tee-shirts that makes people afraid of it, and these fake college intellectuals majoring in Art History who sit in internet cafes throwing dollar after dollar at baristas can go fuck themselves, to be frank. Lenin called this "the measles of the left," that there's something about Marxism that attracts itself especially to students and youth. The fakers like LSD feel like they socially need to take part in that.

Go be homeless for a month, just a month, LSD, and maybe your views will change.

Nobody should truly be a communist until they've experienced the horrors of capitalism. I have, and I like to think that most of the members of this community have.

it's not very materialist to tell someone to "go be homeless".:rolleyes:

The fact that many of us who, 2 generations ago would have been working in a field/factory/mine, now have the opportunity to go to university is actually a progressive thing. this thread is about LSD but actually I find his conversion to reformism less offensive than your reactionary anti-intellectualism. You just come off like a sanctimonius twat. The student movement in various parts of the world has been highly progressive i.e. May 68, in fact if Marx hadn't been a student I doubt he'd have ever been able to write what he did.

Would you prefer that only 10% of the population went to university and the rest of us "suffered the horrors of capitalism" to the fullest degree? Isn't that the opposite of what marxists stand for?

also the fact that you get so abusive when someone doubts marxism - and be it said that LSD is still a fucking left-liberal reformist, not some kind of neoliberal - ties in pretty will with your contempt for most other existing activists, who are usually not particularly well-off middle class people who devote huge amounts of time, energy and money which they can't really afford into fighting for a better world. to be honest if workers in their trade union movements were finding themselves becoming radicalised by events - as happens in most of the semicolonial world - then I doubt the existing of annoying teenage commies would exatly convince them to not become revolutionaries themselves. so maybe you should stop lashing out in your bitterness and disappointment at "student types" - an easy target, but actually a sector of society which is mostly heavily exploited and in debt. Also many students come form working class backgrounds and work themselves just ot support htemselves as they study, so I'd say your belief that only rich people can ever aspire to or become "intelelctuals" or "students" is pretty insulting in itself.

that's all :)

[Xiao Banfa]

I understand what you're saying, LSD. But essentially what Marx said was right- "the history of hitherto existing society is the history of class struggle".

This is irrefutable.

I understand that trots, anarchists and maoists having meetings and whinging about everything is complete bullshit and is obsolete.

But this does not get in the way of the fact that it is in the interest of the workers to achieve socialism.

Throughout history the class that takes over is more progressive than the last.

I think the hope for humanity lies in the working class and the political expression of it's interests regardless of tendencies.

We need a democratic, multi-front approach that doesn't care about whether our methods are bolshevik or menshevik.

We need to work day and night every day and every night. We are up against the final enemy of human dignity.

It's still a choice between "socialism or barbarism".

[Zurdito]

We need a democratic, multi-front approach that doesn't care about whether our methods are bolshevik or menshevik.

i.e. a group that doesn't do anything.

I really hate it when people rail against "sectarianism" and put out the old cry that the left should just "unite" and stop "whinging", whilst ignoring the fact that there are real differences between tendencies, which in the event of the "united" group taking power of in fact undertaking any action would actually make a difference, would immediately cause the group to implode.

Don't you see the arguments which take place every day on RevLeft, for example? It's bad enough now, but you are right, it may be possible (though completely unprincipled), within small groups, to "sweep under the rug" such differences. However were we ever one day to be in charge of the working class in a revoltuionary situation, these questions would pit the different tendencies into direct battle and maybe even on opposite sides in a civil war.

For example, Cuba - half of us here would oppose state repression against demands for political liberalisation in Cuba, and half would support it. That's not a small issue and it's not sectarianism to give a big "fuck off" to those who back bureaucrats against workers.

So really, how primitive is it to just say "stop being sectarian" when people dare to debate what are actually important, sorry, life or death issues? Like, should we supprot the Iraqi resistance? Should we vote for Labour? Do we support Hugo Chavez? Do we call for a new workers party? Do we critically support trade union leaders? Do we back state repression against fascism? etc. etc. etc. They aren't small issues at all. Ask yourself what your opinions are on those issues, and then imagine being in a group which takes the opposite opinion to you on each one. How long you going to stay in that group Xiao? Would you really keep paying your money for them to propogate ideas on each of those issues diametrically opposed to your own? Would you really go out and agitate for all those policies which you thought you were the direct opposite of what was needed?

In fact it seems to me like you are elevating socialism to some mystical "ideal" which cures all differences about how to relate to the existing class struggle. That's wrong.

There are comrades of mine who call themselves socialist and who undoubtedly have good intentions, but who are objectively anti-working class. To be honest the fact that 2 people may call themselves "socialist" doesn't mean it's actually possible for them to co-exist within the smae organisation. The fact you think so makes me wonder how much you've ever actually experienced politics first hand. :s

[RNK]

Debating line questions =/= sectarianism.

The majority of communists have about as much in common with each other as bourgeois political parties like the GOP or Democrats -- and you don't see them splitting at the drop of a pin.

[Guerrilla22]

and these fake college intellectuals majoring in Art History who sit in internet cafes throwing dollar after dollar at baristas can go fuck themselves

Like Zurdito said, many college students are workers themselves, incurring large amounts of debt which they will also have to work off in the future. The idea of the college intellectual, who sits around coffee shops all day, ranting about the evils of capitalism, while their mommy and daddy pay their tuition and rent does apply to some, but definitely not the majority of college students.

One of the goals of socialism should be to ensure that everyone gets an opprotunity at an education, not to condemn people for having an advanced education.

Marx himself had a phd by the time he was 23 and likely wouldn't have developed the theories he did, had he not had a college education.

[Xiao Banfa]

Like, should we supprot the Iraqi resistance? Should we vote for Labour? Do we support Hugo Chavez? Do we call for a new workers party? Do we critically support trade union leaders? Do we back state repression against fascism? etc. etc. etc. They aren't small issues at all. Ask yourself what your opinions are on those issues, and then imagine being in a group which takes the opposite opinion to you on each one. How long you going to stay in that group Xiao? Would you really keep paying your money for them to propogate ideas on each of those issues diametrically opposed to your own? Would you really go out and agitate for all those policies which you thought you were the direct opposite of what was needed?

These are all good questions but not all issues of disagreement prevent socialist unity.
We need to break out of this period even if it means the party that does it (and it's not labour) don't have the perfect line on every single issue.


In fact it seems to me like you are elevating socialism to some mystical "ideal" which cures all differences about how to relate to the existing class struggle. That's wrong.

What?

[Awful Reality]

Do you know he hasn't, i mean, for sure? Do any of you know him, to know this for a fact that he hasn't?

I'm just writing this in case someobody is conclusion jumping like a flea on a hot stove without even knowing LSD.

Perhaps I am jumping the gun, but this is based on many of his claims and the general consensus on this thread regarding LSD.

[Bilan]

Yes, of course only you and the chosen ones can see the realities of capitalism; the rest of us must obviously be blind and must therefore be herded into utopia because we don't know what's good for us.

Don't post, you're a waste of time.
That was a complete failure of a counter-point.



Don't you get it? It's precisely this kind of evangelical immaturity/utopian lunacy that put him off in the first place.

What a ridiculous statement.
Nothing I said was utopian.



What's the hell is a theoretical reality?

Poor articulation for what Marx described in his texts (or for that matter, any communist, anarchist, etc. in history).

[RHIZOMES]

i.e. a group that doesn't do anything.

I really hate it when people rail against "sectarianism" and put out the old cry that the left should just "unite" and stop "whinging", whilst ignoring the fact that there are real differences between tendencies, which in the event of the "united" group taking power of in fact undertaking any action would actually make a difference, would immediately cause the group to implode.

Don't you see the arguments which take place every day on RevLeft, for example? It's bad enough now, but you are right, it may be possible (though completely unprincipled), within small groups, to "sweep under the rug" such differences. However were we ever one day to be in charge of the working class in a revoltuionary situation, these questions would pit the different tendencies into direct battle and maybe even on opposite sides in a civil war.

For example, Cuba - half of us here would oppose state repression against demands for political liberalisation in Cuba, and half would support it. That's not a small issue and it's not sectarianism to give a big "fuck off" to those who back bureaucrats against workers.

So really, how primitive is it to just say "stop being sectarian" when people dare to debate what are actually important, sorry, life or death issues? Like, should we supprot the Iraqi resistance? Should we vote for Labour? Do we support Hugo Chavez? Do we call for a new workers party? Do we critically support trade union leaders? Do we back state repression against fascism? etc. etc. etc. They aren't small issues at all. Ask yourself what your opinions are on those issues, and then imagine being in a group which takes the opposite opinion to you on each one. How long you going to stay in that group Xiao? Would you really keep paying your money for them to propogate ideas on each of those issues diametrically opposed to your own? Would you really go out and agitate for all those policies which you thought you were the direct opposite of what was needed?

In fact it seems to me like you are elevating socialism to some mystical "ideal" which cures all differences about how to relate to the existing class struggle. That's wrong.

There are comrades of mine who call themselves socialist and who undoubtedly have good intentions, but who are objectively anti-working class. To be honest the fact that 2 people may call themselves "socialist" doesn't mean it's actually possible for them to co-exist within the smae organisation. The fact you think so makes me wonder how much you've ever actually experienced politics first hand. :s

I think if we had a socialist society in which socialists could have different opinions - it'd be very democratic. The workers could choose if they want a left-communist, a maoist, a trotskyist, etc direction.

The problem I have with sectarianism is that it's usually over dead communists from 50 years ago, instead of actual POLICY. No sane person who thinks Stalin or Mao weren't bad people don't want the type of society Trotskyists and capitalists say Stalin and Mao ruled. If Trotskyists and Maoists worked together (Like my party does), they'd realize there's no real difference of opinion on the world today (i.e. what actually matters), or what is to be done.

I think the united kind of policy should be limited though. I don't think Leninists would get along very well with non-Leninist Marxists or anarchists, etc.

[Joby]

This comes from research you've done? Can you show me this evidence you have?

It's a well known fact that the more money someone has, the larger the chance they'll be politically active.

Just as someone who has less money will be more likely to buy ciagrettes, alcohol, drugs, etc etc. Most really don't care about much, so long as they can get their "soma." (whether that be drugs, the religion's poor people cling to, whatever)



Is this your defence for poverty? That's pretty poor by most standards. In fact, I think I can say that this is probably the most ridiculous argument I've encountered. Poverty is ok because poor people are poor?

Are you not embarrassed?


No. Not in the slightest. I'm not in poverty, why should I be?

Everything I own was made by people willing to sell it to me. (with the proud execption of my garden). I wear my Nikes with pride. If someone making 17 cents a day in the PRC doesn't like that deal then damn, they should probably quit. Have a revolution. Overthrow oppression. Unionize.

Nobody in the West is going to hand it to them, including myself (though I'll certainly help them out when I contribute to that huge amount of $'s they're raking in.)

But it simply ain't my problem. Sure, we should focus on ending most of the US's involvement overseas; the blatant examples of brutal imperialism. Sure, we should allow the third world to grow Capitalistically unhindered...no coups when their democracy decides to not murder the unions.

But that's a political issue, not necessarily an economic one. Yes, the elite makes it's moves for economic reasons, but organized, grassroots political movements will be much more effective at combating that power than sitting at home and praying for mass direct-action.

There has never been a revolution in an indistrialized nation. The closest was the nonviolent American Civil-Rights movement, the nonviolent South African anti-apartheid movement, the nonviolent Anti-war movement, the nonviolent overthrow of the Eastern Bloc, and ultimately the USSR. What many leftists fail to realize (and the Palestinians, as well, ufortunately) is that nonviolent revolution is the only alternative truly open. The people wouldn't win a violent revolution...For every step taken down that road a greater reactionary movement will emerge.


That's a quantifiable fact, is it? Then you won't mind if someone comes and shoots you in the face then?

Of course not. If you try to take my life, I'm going to resist.

But trying to alter the world's economic and political systems with some act isn't worth your life any more than going to Church on sundays.


Who is this "we" you're talking about?

Everyone. Everything else in life is really just bullshit. Reality's kind of a big joke.

[Joby]

Joby's got his facts confused. Happiness is only correlated with income to a point (about $50,000 USD/year), at which point it levels off.

From this we can learn that it's security (ie: not having to fucking worry about money and the future constantly) that matters more than affluence. In a society where that material security would be guaranteed, our happiness would be contingent upon what we make of our lives, not how much we make in our lives.

That's just as much an argument for Social-Democracy as it is for bloody revolution, perhaps even more.

Rewarding people who benefit society, and thereby growing in a progressive direction. Highly taxing those who don't toil for their earnings. Making sure everyone has healthcare, a meal, and a place to sleep. And on and on.

Demand-side, really.

[Xiao Banfa]

nonviolent South African anti-apartheid movement


Hahahahahahahahahahahaha.

So what was the soviet military aid to the ANC for. Ever heard of Umkhonto we Sizwe?

The defeat of the south african apartheid regime (aided by their israeli and us mates) was broad about by anti-imperialist solidarity on many fronts including military ones.

SWAPO, MPLA and the cuban military helped to put SA on the back foot with guns, my friend.



What many leftists fail to realize (and the Palestinians, as well, ufortunately) is that nonviolent revolution is the only alternative truly open.


Oh the liberal arrogance. Cumbaya wont stop the capitalist death squads.

[Bright Banana Beard]

Impressive reply made by LZ. We cannot have a revolution in a country or it will be doomed.

[FireFry]

Capitalism beat him

I thin that's wrong. I think death and disease and poor medicine of the time beat him.

Because you're becoming disillusioned with cargo cults of the left, it doesn't mean that you need be particularly disillusioned with the leftist ideal of equality.

Certainly, this seems more like a rant against repressive attitudes of so called vanguard parties than against the actual left.

Marx was right, but he wasn't really a revolutionary. He was a philosopher and an agitator. He lived in poverty most of his life because he refused to exploit those beneath him.

If capitalism is ALL we have to look forward to, then why bother continuing life at all? Why don't we all just hang ourselves if all our opportunity is just being exploited and exploiting others.

But we don't, because the communist project is the saving grace of the world.

[AGITprop]

Its really funny how many of you disagree with LSD and many of you agree. I especially liked the comment bout him arguing with sectarian trots. In the defence of those "sectarian trots", I am one of them. When LSD came to our discussion group i had no idea who he was. Ive known lsd on revleft but didn know that CyM knew him. In defence of LSD, i thnk hes a bright guy.In real life though, hes simply a crackpot. After meeting him for 25 seconds I had already lost respect for him as a person. We tried keeping a speakers list to facilitate the discussion and he did not want to respect it. As for what he said about he argument over the sexist comment between some of us, I was involved in that argument with a couple other of my comrades and for the record it has nothing to do with personal problems, thats just how we get along. You can all believe what you want, I am just trying to explain what really happened. He did not like our discussion on why the environment is doomed under capitalism, so be it. He calls us dogmatic for discussing Marxist solutions to problems, well he can think whatever he wants. In the end, we are an international organization trying our best with our resources to build from he ground up and he is an a social democrat in a crisis because he doesn't understand structure.

[Die Neue Zeit]

God knows many have, but be prepared to kill millions in the process, and I do mean that literally.

I'd wish you good luck, but I'm thankful every day that you're such an irrelevent minority. Because were you to achieve any real power, I shudder to think of the world you would leave in your wake.



There are a couple of million proper bourgeoisie who could be physically liquidated. :)

No social upheaval has succeeded without terror.

As for "irrelevancy," you have no idea about the increasing relative immiseration of the working class. BTW, congrats on affiliating yourself with an organization that includes thugs like Mubarak.

[Demogorgon]

No social upheaval has succeeded without terror.

Not strictly true. As I pointed out earlier, we are living throught the continuation of one of the biggest social upheavels in human history, that is women finally pulling themselves free of male domination.

Certain people who shall remain nameless will feel tempted to make sexist jokes here, but there hasn't been any terror in bringing this about. There has been violent struggle yes, but not terror.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ I was being "maximalist" in my definition of "social upheaval" (synonymous with "violent revolution"). :(

To paraphrase Robespierre:

"We must smother the internal and external enemies of the [workers'] Republic or perish with it; now in this situation, the first maxim of your policy ought to be to lead the [workers] by reason and the [workers]'s enemies by terror."

[RedStarOverChina]

Oh well...It is a very difficult time to be a revolutionary. Life under Capitalism gets to you.

I've seen this happen too many times to still have feelings of disappointment; and I'm pretty sure it was much worse when Kautsky turned out to be a reformist.

But I will say this...I feel cheated, recalling your past posts constantly "proving" yourself to be a fervent revolutionary. I've had my doubts about you, though you later on managed to convince me about your sincerity. I guess my gut instinct was right.

Well, guess next time we'll all have to look beyond mere words.

[LSD]

Now that LZ has split this thread, I'm not sure where this stands. But I'll try to use this thread to respond to the substantive posts that don't fit into the more "serious" Marxists vs. LSD thread -- if you want to post there I do encourage you to; just give everone the common courtesy of actually reading the thread before post in it.

So this thread will be a tad lighter in tone than the other, and hence, should consist of much shorter posts. If you want an in-depth discussion of Marxism, or capitalism, etc.. post in the thread Led Zeppelin set up.


That is a petty cop out, and you know it.
Capitalism is not the only workable solution. This, you know, is being completely dishonest, and sounds more like but out than an honest, rational and backed opinion.

:lol:

"...and you know it" , I think I introduced that particular trope to this board. I used to use it back in my CUSID debating days. It's an awfully nice little piece of rhetoric that manages to accuse your opponent of being both a liar and an idiot simultaneously, without having to come out and say it.

If capitalism isn't the only option, what's the alternative? Seriously, right now, what have you got?

'Cause so far, all I've heard is a lot of vague notions about planned economies (tried and failed), state oligarchies (can you spell Orwellian?), or bizarre delusions (have you spoken to primitivist lately?).

If there's an immediate alternative to capitalism, I haven't seen it. But believe me, I'd love to. So please, forward it my way.


In my eyes, what you said was a direct insult to all of us.
It was like saying, suffer. Deal with it. You can't change it. You're just not worth that much.

Then I apologize. That wasn't what I was trying to say at all.

Don't accept, don't conform, don't "deal" with "suffering". When you see injustice fight to remedy it, when you see low wages, fight for union rights. When you see a man fired for being gay or a woman fired for having a child, stand up for them, fight for them. Support laws that will help their lives, protest bigots who would harm them.

You're right, no one should have to suffer. And we should do all we can to minimize suffering, 'cause no one deserves it, no one. But dreams don't knock down pillars and fantasies don't materialize on sheer will alone.

Regardless of what we're all "worth", we all live in the real world, and we all are forced to deal with the harsh realities of that world and part of that is labour production and a means of distributing finite capital.

Is capitalism a particularly good mechanism of distribution? Not really. It's monumentally unfair and horribly flawed, but unfortunately it's the best anyone's come up with yet. Perhaps, at this level of development, it's the best we're capable of.


Your dumb

And yet I speak. It must be a miracle! :ohmy:


Hmm LSD I find it a bit funny you turning into a Social Democrat in this day and age were the Social Democrats are actually dismantling the wellfare state.

Sounds like it's the perfect time to remind the social democrats of what they're supposed to be doing.


Go be homeless for a month, just a month, LSD, and maybe your views will change.

Sure, that's why the vast majority of the world's homeless population are members of communist parties... :rolleyes:


For 24 hours, since i read your post yesterday, I thought u were a genuinely thinking adult who would have been thinking about narrow mindedness among probably the particular leftists you wrote about, and still hate the society. Now today, I get on, you're restricted, and saying now u accept society is basically what you say now. In my opinion true thinking peoples will always question today's society. Now you're accepting it? Wtf?

I am a "genuinely thinking adult" and I've put my "genuinely thinking adult" mind at work in thinking about this problem of "revolutionary socialism" and I've come to the inescapable conclusion that it's a load of bunk.

I get that you don't particularly like that conclusion, but don't you go about accusing me of being narrow-minded! I've just jumped the proverbial fence, for God's sakes, I'm as open minded as it gets!

And as for "accepting" the society around me, I do nothing of thje sort; there are all sorts of problems I see that should be fixed. The question at hand, however, is whether a "revolution" is in the cards to solve them. My answer remains no[/b]. Your's is....? (be careful, you don't want to get restricted.... :D)


Women are being mind controlled to think that body hair.....normal and natural for all mammals......is somehow wrong. On them that is. But on a man its ok because they have a penis. (I have tried both depilating and being natural. And may I say, that when i didnt depilate i felt so liberated from this gender double standard its such a great feeling ! I dont depilate now and I get condemned by everyone for not doing it. I pay no attention of course. They have been corrupted by mind benders and mind fuckers.)

I don't know that I even need to respond to this argument, but it was just such a lovely example of what's wrong with the revolutionary left that I couldn't resist quoting it.

Someone doesn't like shaving so she decides it's capitalism's fault. I don't like shaving either, but I do it. I used to have a mustache, in fact I believe there's a picture of me in the CC with a mustache. But 2 years ago I decided to shave it off.

It's annoying, sure, 'cause every day that damn hair just keeps growing back. But that's what fashion is about, shaping your features to match an external standard of beauty.

So I look better without a mustache, so you look better without pubic hair. None of this is political and none of this should be discussed on this board!


A degree of exploitation and disempowerment. A degree? A fucking degree? Open your eyes! The vast majority of the world is exploited, and the vast majority of the world is utterly disempowered. Why do you suddenly not care? What has happened to you to make you able to turn a blind eye to that?

I care, I wish there was something I could do. I wish I was in a position to change any of that. But I'm not, and you're not, and we're not living in a simulated world.

We've only got the one planet to work with, so we've got to get it right the frst time or we're done. And while capitalism may be proving itself to be an ugly and unruly beast, it still beats the monstrosity that was the planned economies of Russia and China and the rest.


Perhaps this is a valid point, but you need to develop it. The OIers have tried, I've never seen an impressive argument that marxism's "failures" are down to the theory rather than other factors.

Don't worry, there's a thread for that: Marxist vs. LSD; serious responses please. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/debate-marxist-versus-t72201/index.html)

[chimx]

If capitalism isn't the only option, what's the alternative? Seriously, right now, what have you got?

'Cause so far, all I've heard is a lot of vague notions about planned economies (tried and failed), state oligarchies (can you spell Orwellian?), or bizarre delusions (have you spoken to primitivist lately?).

If there's an immediate alternative to capitalism, I haven't seen it. But believe me, I'd love to. So please, forward it my way.

Marxism for me isn't about finding an alternative to capitalism. It is about the unavoidable conflict with capital. It is from that struggle that we develop those future hypothetical "alternatives".

Maybe it is paradoxical. Marxism is very much a progressive paradigm with an end goal and end of history, but we can't struggle for those idealistic reasons. We struggle out of material necessity to improve the quality of our lives as working class people.

If you are operating from an idealistic perspective, it is easy to become disillusioned, but that is a problem with idealism, not Marxism.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

I care, I wish there was something I could do. I wish I was in a position to change any of that. But I'm not, and you're not, and we're not living in a simulated world.

We've only got the one planet to work with, so we've got to get it right the frst time or we're done. And while capitalism may be proving itself to be an ugly and unruly beast, it still beats the monstrosity that was the planned economies of Russia and China and the rest.

Yeah, we're not in a position to change stuff radically now. Hell, we might never be, as depressing as it is I can't really give you any knock-down arguments that we're gonna be successful any time soon. Way I see it though, is we've got some options in this scenario:

A. Give up and be a social democrat, or some other form of cuddly capitalist, which I suppose is your path, even if your leftism was never sincere in the first place.

B. Try to do something about it. Actually fight to change our diminutive position in the world! That meeting you went to sounds fucking terrible, I chafe in that environment as much as anyone, so the answer is to try to get rid of all that aimless crap. I can't help sounding a bit idealist here, and I hate how left politics can deviate into quasi religious rhetoric sometimes which seems to be part of what turns you off - but struggle, however apparrently futile, will always always always be preferable to giving up.

I don't know if capitalism is better than the totalitarian "communist states", though. It seems to me that the same issues exist across both systems. Starvation, oppression, so on and so forth. It's just that somewhere like the USSR they're more direct, they actually seem to be ordered from on high. :( That shit doesn't disappear with the market and capitalism, it's just more implicit. It becomes just a 'fact of life' that some people struggle to feed themselves, et cetera. I'm being kinda vague here, because we've got a serious thread, but do you get what I mean?



Don't worry, there's a thread for that: Marxist vs. LSD; serious responses please. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/debate-marxist-versus-t72201/index.html)


Mate, I'll try, but it's a bit daunting. I was always a tad in thrall of how eloquent you are debating people, which is irritating since you didn't even mean it. :glare:

-Alex

[Ele'ill]

My views have changed as I've gotten older. I have become a moderate when I want to play the political game. Most of the time I simply don't trust what I hear about the current state of affairs in the united states or abroad. I still distrust authority.

I came to a point in my life where I was tired of being angry all the time and realized I had to enjoy some of what was left on this planet. Some times its good to take it easy for a while. Here's a quote that many of you will probably hate but i'm going to post it anyways.



"One final paragraph of advice: Do not burn yourself out. Be as I am-a reluctant enthusiast... a part time crusader, a half-hearted fanatic. Save the other half of yourselves and your lives for pleasure and adventure. It is not enough to fight for the land; it is even more important to enjoy it. While you can. While it is still there. So get out there and mess around with your friends, ramble out yonder and explore the forests, encounter the grizz, climb the mountains. Run the rivers, breathe deep of that yet sweet and lucid air, sit quietly for a while and contemplate the precious stillness, that lovely, mysterious and awesome space. Enjoy yourselves, keep your brain in your head and your head firmly attached to your body, the body active and alive, and I promise you this much: I promise you this one sweet victory over our enemies, over those deskbound people with their hearts in a safe deposit box and their eyes hypnotized by desk calculators. I promise you this: you will outlive the bastards." -Edward Abbey

[Feslin]

LSD, the original post is the absolute best post I've seen on any political board. Granted, I've only been into political boards for about six years now, but this is an amazing post.

I disagree with a large amount of it, but the truly important things you have right. I am truly in awe of the amount of pure honesty poured into this post. I appreciate honesty more than anyone.

But what truly strikes me is your honesty with yourself. I have seen this in very few people.

Well, onto the post.


'Cause sitting in that crowded dusty little office, full of books no one wants to read and articles by authors no one's ever heard of, I was struck by the abject pointlessness of it all.

I agree. But don't get caught up in "what's the point?" because there is never a real point, when it comes down to it.


And that, my friends, is the revolutionary vanguard of the proletariat. A bunch of lonlely deluded idealists sitting around in a backroom dreaming Russian dreams that died seventy years ago.

Pure honesty. True kudos.


And I just stood there listening. And I agreed with everything he said about sexism (the guy was a real jackoff), but this concept, "fighting in the revolution", it just kept banging around my head until I realized that he really believes that in the forseeable future the "proletariat" are going to "rise up" and establish a "workers state". And in that same moment I realized that I didn't.

Again, pure honesty.


I don't know what the future holds, but I do know that history does not move in circles.

You're right. It's much more complicated than that. You have billions of individuals all working for their self-interest, it's impossible to make it simple.


There is something so comically tragic about it. I've been going through some changes in my life, reconsidering some of my paradigms and preconceptions, and the one thing I'm realizing is that the older I get, the less I'm certain of. The fact is, the world is an incredibly complicated place and none of us have a good answer to the mess we're in.

Yes!

And frankly, the world will be messed up for a long time. And in fact, I'm not entirely sure it will ever not be messed up.



And yet, when it comes right down to it, the real "evil" of American global capitalism is that it works. If it didn't, we wouldn't all be sitting here today. Oh, it doesn't work for everyone, and it sucks balls for 90% of the world, but capitalism endures.


I disagree. I think that 90% is fucked up not because of capitalism, but the lack of a western type system.

I'm not saying I want to force it on them, I don't even like it. And frankly, I just don't care anymore. I'm a libertarian who doesn't care about libertarianism. I wouldn't even fight for it if a true revolution did happen. And it never will. Ever.


And I have absolutely no doubt that Obama and the people around him genuinely want to do all of those things and to help poor people and working people and to bring about a fairer more equal America.

I don't think so, but maybe. It's not impossible.


That there are no perfect solutions in an imperfect world.

The best line in your post.

The world is complicated. And all of us here on these forums? There's no real point. When it comes down to it, we don't truly mean anything. We're not going to create a perfect world with all our rambling and debating. We're just wasting time.

But in the end, I think that everyone is just wasting time.


'Cause, come on, none of us really ever had that answer. You know the one, the answer to that newbie poster who naively wanders into Theory and asks so...why will people work if there's no money? We brush them off and move their post to Learning where they can be deluged with mountains of drivel and theory, but we never actually sit down and ponder the question because, I suspect, we all know somewhere in the back of our minds that there is no answer.

Utter honesty.


All of which tells me that, when it comes down to it, we probably won't see a moneyless society until we finaly divorce production from labour. Once the technology develops to the point that everything can be automated and copmuterized, then classes become irrelevent and then we have "communism" (of one sort or another).

This is true. The technocrats have it right. I consider it immoral, but it's what's going to happen, and frankly, I'm going to like it once it does, if I'm still here.


The older I get, the more I realize I don't know. I don't need a political label, I just know what makes sense to me and what doesn't. When I take that moronic "political compass" test, I still come out -10, -10. But y'all would probably call be a "reformist", whatever, I don't care anymore.

Not caring anymore is an important step, as I see it.


I posted a few weeks ago that modern American "liberalism" is foundationless as an ideology. That is, it isn't actually based on any single ideological tenet. That's still true, but I'm much less sure that that's actually a bad thing. Ideologies tend to do more harm than they do good. They tend to blind and to cloak. The left has certainly shed its fair share of blood in the name of spurious ideas.

So am I a "liberal"? I don't know. I still disagree with most of the mainstream liberal agenda. So I guess I don't know what I am. All the better. Labels are for file-folders.

And the older I get, the more I realize I don't know.

Peace.

I'm not going to get long-winded, I never really do, but here are my rather simple thoughts on it.

Through all their idiocy, hypocrisy, and blindness, the "liberals" or "social democrats" or whatever you want to call them are going to create a happy, stable, functioning world. And as much as I hate it, as much as I say I don't want it, I'm going to like it once it happens.

Kudos on a great post, truly.

EDIT: And on another note, based on the post above mine...

Honestly, truly, enjoy yourself. And not just as part of a break from political-based anger, but truly and for your whole life. Don't get caught up in the problems of others, at least not too much. I know it sounds wrong, and I know it sounds self-centered. But truly we're all self-centered. When we're saddened by the picture of a starving african boy, it's not out of altruism but self-centeredness that we are saddened. No one is altruistic, no one is truly that much better than anyone else. Hell, I'm not even sure if anyone is better than anyone else anymore. But I just don't care. I haven't cared in a long while, and I'm the happiest I've ever been. That's not to say don't help people out you come across if you think it wouldn't be too much of an inconvenience for you, I love to help people. I admit, it's entirely self-centered, but that doesn't bother me any more. Self-centeredness no longer angers me, or saddens me, it's how we all are. I accept that, and I embrace it.

For all life's problems and this worlds problems, I love it. Every minute.




I know my post isn't set up in an orderly fashion, but there's just no point. I said what came to mind as it came to mind. It may sound corny and it may sound incoherent, oh well.

[Feslin]

Unless of course you're incredibly poor or just making enough money to pay your rent and pay your bills, in which case you can eat and drink, just - and the merry bit will have to come when you go to heaven, right?

Dick!

Hypocrite.

[spartan]

And that, my friends, is the revolutionary vanguard of the proletariat. A bunch of lonlely deluded idealists sitting around in a backroom dreaming Russian dreams that died seventy years ago.

Pure honesty. True kudos.

No offence but you Libertarians are dreaming American dreams that died out 200+ years ago!

[Feslin]

No offence but you Libertraians are dreaming American dreams that died out 200+ years ago!

I dream no dreams.

I used to dream dreams, I used to envision a perfect economy and a free people.

But now I accept the truths of this world.

1) I will never truly understand it. It is complicated. Anyone who pretends to understand it is idiotic.
2) The libertarian revolution will never happen. People don't want it. And as much as I intellectually want it, I know that I would hate it once it came. But it doesn't matter, it won't come.
3) The world is messed up, bad.
4) Technology is the only way to create a perfectly happy universe. And even that I view as somehow... wrong. Though I know I'd love it.
5) The idiots and hypocrites (liberals and social democrats) are going to make the world generally happy, generally stable, and generally free, not the intellectuals or the "great thinkers" of the libertarian or leftist movements. The apathetic masses will make the future. That's the world we live in now. Years ago, in the early 20th and late 19th century it was different, it was the non-apathetic masses that would make history. But people are getting happier, and happiness makes people apathetic. I see that now, because it's happening to me. You're missing out.
6) People are self-centered. And if you honestly think you're not, you're mistaken.

Again, corny and pointless. I'm fine with that now.

EDIT: Hmm, as I sit here and think, I find some twisted irony in all this.

Those apathetic, idiotic masses were always at the conclusions I, a self-proclaimed intellectual, have come to over the past few weeks. Of course, I've come to them in a non-hypocritical way, unlike them, but still, I find it ironic.

[manic expression]

Curious to see this. LSD, I always did think you incapable of being a revolutionary, and it seems I was right.


If capitalism isn't the only option, what's the alternative? Seriously, right now, what have you got?

Socialism. Worker control. What did you think we were going to say?

Before you bring out your spanking new anti-socialist rhetoric, you can spare us. You know as well as I do that life for Cuban workers is exponentially better than it ever could be under capitalism. When it comes to housing, health care, education, gender and racial equality and more, Cuba embarrasses every other capitalist country on earth. And remember, this is WITH the capitalist blockade. Revolution brought about this progress, nothing less and nothing more. That is why I am a revolutionary.

Socialism has worked, it is working. Then again, LSD, I always knew you were an anti-socialist deep at heart. It's not that socialism doesn't work, it's that YOU DON'T WANT IT TO. You fundamentally disagree with working class power, and that is the problem here. Drop the "demoralized leftist" garbage and face facts, because you aren't going to feel ANY LESS demoralized or isolated working for some impotent democratic socialist/social democratic/green organization. However, part of me thinks it fitting that you'd do such a thing.


We've only got the one planet to work with, so we've got to get it right the frst time or we're done. And while capitalism may be proving itself to be an ugly and unruly beast, it still beats the monstrosity that was the planned economies of Russia and China and the rest.

What absurdity. Are you trying to tell me that capitalist Russia is better for the working class than the USSR? A blind man could tell you otherwise, because such an assertion is incredibly stupid. Check ANY of the stats on living standards in ANY former Soviet country and you'll see what I'm talking about. Life expectancy has dropped, homelessness (especially for CHILDREN and VETERANS) has skyrocketed, unemployment is rampant, racism is rampant, desperation is rampant. And yet here you are, in stark ignorance of the fact that socialism was devoid of these outrages.

Again, it seems that you simply oppose working class revolution because you're not a revolutionary. Have fun basking in the innocence of impotence, because it's all you'll ever have.

[Feslin]

What absurdity. Are you trying to tell me that capitalist Russia is better for the working class than the USSR? A blind man could tell you otherwise, because such an assertion is incredibly stupid. Check ANY of the stats on living standards in ANY former Soviet country and you'll see what I'm talking about. Life expectancy has dropped, homelessness (especially for CHILDREN and VETERANS) has skyrocketed, unemployment is rampant, racism is rampant, desperation is rampant. And yet here you are, in stark ignorance of the fact that socialism was devoid of these outrages.

Again, it seems that you simply oppose working class revolution because you're not a revolutionary. Have fun basking in the innocence of impotence, because it's all you'll ever have.

And yet, here we capitalists sit, in Western Europe and America, enjoying life for what it is. Apathetic and happy.

Capitalism isn't the end all. You need the whole twisted western system, and for the people to accept it.

[manic expression]

And yet, here we capitalists sit, in Western Europe and America, enjoying life for what it is. Apathetic and happy.

Capitalism isn't the end all. You need the whole twisted western system, and for the people to accept it.

OK, I'm trying to figure out what the hell that's supposed to mean. For clarification, are you trying to make a point? Listen, we all know capitalists are enjoying life, but this is immaterial. Why? Well, for starters, workers, the largest part of the population, aren't so happy, and for good reason. Capitalists exploit the majority of the population, bringing them deprivation and desperation; the "happiness" of the capitalist is bought with the sadness of the worker. Sorry, but it's true, capitalism gives happiness to capitalists, while socialism gives happiness to workers.

Oh, and I enjoy life as well. I would list the hobbies that give me such enjoyment, but again, it's completely immaterial, much like your insipid and meaningless "point".

Oh, and by the way, a small and shrinking amount of the western population has been able to sustain their formerly luxurious lifestyles. It's about time capitalists admit what everyone else already knows: that the consolidation of wealth and capital is destroying capitalism's very stability. Capitalism is digging its own grave as we type, and you need only look at the news or the stock market to figure as much.

[Feslin]

OK, I'm trying to figure out what the hell that's supposed to mean. For clarification, are you trying to make a point? Listen, we all know capitalists are enjoying life, but this is immaterial. Why? Well, for starters, workers, the largest part of the population, aren't so happy, and for good reason.

The workers are capitalists! And not in your twisted sense of the word. In the sense that they don't believe in your Marxist rubbish, they are capitalists. And they are happy! Apathetic, and happy.


Capitalists exploit the majority of the population, bringing them deprivation and desperation; the "happiness" of the capitalist is bought with the sadness of the worker. Sorry, but it's true, capitalism gives happiness to capitalists, while socialism gives happiness to workers.

The majority of the population is happy. At least in America and Western Europe. And we're apathetic.



Oh, and I enjoy life as well. I would list the hobbies that give me such enjoyment, but again, it's completely immaterial, much like your insipid and meaningless "point".


There is no point. I see now that there never is a real point.


Oh, and by the way, a small and shrinking amount of the western population has been able to sustain their formerly luxurious lifestyles.

I know. And I see that fixing itself with time.

This new election, either Obama or McCain, I'm seeing a new political movement. A quiet one with no real name, taking place. And I truly believe within the next 10 years, the standard of living in Europe and America will increase tremendously.


It's about time capitalists admit what everyone else already knows: that the consolidation of wealth and capital is destroying capitalism's very stability. Capitalism is digging its own grave as we type, and you need only look at the news or the stock market to figure as much.

Oh please. "The end of capitalism is near" has been spouted forever now. Let's face the truth, the West is stable. It will move into a more social democratic direction, and eventually take a strong technocratic turn.


Again, I have no point. I'm not trying to make a real argument. I'm saying what comes to mind as it comes to mind.

[manic expression]

The workers are capitalists! And not in your twisted sense of the word. In the sense that they don't believe in your Marxist rubbish, they are capitalists. And they are happy! Apathetic, and happy.

No, they are not capitalists, and anyone who says a worker is a capitalist obviously doesn't know what they're talking about. And no, workers are not very happy with the present situation; are you that naive as to think that most people LIKE the present conditions? Don't make me laugh.


The majority of the population is happy. At least in America and Western Europe. And we're apathetic.

Reality sucks when you deny it for so long. Go outside and talk to anyone about the world today. They won't be explicitly happy about it, I can guarantee it (unless they're a capitalist, meaning a rich person).


There is no point. I see now that there never is a real point.

Good to know you agree that your argument is worthless.


I know. And I see that fixing itself with time.

This new election, either Obama or McCain, I'm seeing a new political movement. A quiet one with no real name, taking place. And I truly believe within the next 10 years, the standard of living in Europe and America will increase tremendously.

It will fix itself through the destruction of capitalism. Capitalism has ALWAYS concentrated wealth into fewer and fewer hands, capitalism has ALWAYS driven down wages. The "invisible hand" is always hard at work, exploiting the majority of humanity for the profits of the few.

A new political movement? That's rich. Go look at Obama's website and show me something new or exciting. You won't find anything, because he's essentially a moderate. Obama and McCain offer more business as usual, and the fact that, while you place hope in Obama and McCain, you call LEFTISTS idealists for trying to end this catastrophic system is simply comical. Your entire argument is a joke.


Oh please. "The end of capitalism is near" has been spouted forever now. Let's face the truth, the West is stable. It will move into a more social democratic direction, and eventually take a strong technocratic turn.

It's not necessarily near. It's inevitable. An apple might not fall to the ground tomorrow or next week, but it will.


Again, I have no point. I'm not trying to make a real argument.

No, you don't have a point. Like I said, a joke.

[Feslin]

No, they are not capitalists, and anyone who says a worker is a capitalist obviously doesn't know what they're talking about.

I've been called a capitalist many times because I didn't agree with you Marxists.

Few of them agree with you. At least in America.


And no, workers are not very happy with the present situation; are you that naive as to think that most people LIKE the present conditions? Don't make me laugh.

I believe that most people are happy in the present conditions.


Reality sucks when you deny it for so long.

Reality sucks when you care too much about it.


Go outside and talk to anyone about the world today. They won't be explicitly happy about it, I can guarantee it (unless they're a capitalist, meaning a rich person).

Fine, I just talked to my uncle yesterday. He's perfectly happy with the way his life is going. He's not really making as much money as he wants to, but who is?


Good to know you agree that your argument is worthless.

Mainly because I'm not making an argument...


It will fix itself through the destruction of capitalism. Capitalism has ALWAYS concentrated wealth into fewer and fewer hands, capitalism has ALWAYS driven down wages. The "invisible hand" is always hard at work, exploiting the majority of humanity for the profits of the few.

Yes, the rich will get richer.

And the poor will get richer.


A new political movement?

Yep. Very moderate in nature.


That's rich. Go look at Obama's website and show me something new or exciting.

That's exactly it. There is nothing especially new or exciting. Just little changes, no hungry idealism.


You won't find anything, because he's essentially a moderate. Obama and McCain offer more business as usual, and the fact that, while you place hope in Obama and McCain, you call LEFTISTS idealists for trying to end this catastrophic system is simply comical. Your entire argument is a joke.

I'm making no real argument.


It's not necessarily near. It's inevitable. An apple might not fall to the ground tomorrow or next week, but it will.

Hmm, that's a perfect comparison.


No, you don't have a point. Like I said, a joke.

And ultimately, neither do you.

[manic expression]

I've been called a capitalist many times because I didn't agree with you Marxists.

You're ideologically a capitalist. Whether or not you're a capitalist in your social position is unknown to me. Your inability to grasp this elementary concept (ideological and social definitions) tells me quite a bit about your political sophistication.


Few of them agree with you. At least in America.

The working class comes to agree with the communist movement in times of crisis. It happened in the past and it'll happen again. Furthermore, anyone who's been involved in a union struggle agrees with our immediate demands.


I believe that most people are happy in the present conditions.

Then you're completely oblivious to the ideas of most people.


Reality sucks when you care too much about it.

Reality is great when it's on your side. That's why it sucks for you.


Fine, I just talked to my uncle yesterday. He's perfectly happy with the way his life is going. He's not really making as much money as he wants to, but who is?

So in other words, he's not perfectly happy with the way his life is going. Thanks for playing.


Mainly because I'm not making an argument...

I know. You did try to, however.


Yes, the rich will get richer.

And the poor will get richer.

Nonsensical fallacy. This is not how society is going at this point; the rich are getting richer while real wages for the workers have consistently dropped for decades.


Yep. Very moderate in nature.

Therefore, nothing new.


And ultimately, neither do you.

Wrong again.

[Feslin]

You're ideologically a capitalist.

And so are they.


Whether or not you're a capitalist in your social position is unknown to me.

That's the twisted use of the word I was referring to.


Your inability to grasp this elementary concept (ideological and social definitions) tells me quite a bit about your political sophistication.

It's not an inability, it's the ability to see that the social definition is twisted.


The working class comes to agree with the communist movement in times of crisis.

Of course it does. It serves them to do so.


It happened in the past and it'll happen again. Furthermore, anyone who's been involved in a union struggle agrees with our immediate demands.

Does that make you feel better?


Then you're completely oblivious to the ideas of most people.

Happiness isn't an idea.

And I'm pretty sure I connect better with mainstream Americans than you do.


Reality is great when it's on your side. That's why it sucks for you.

Reality doesn't suck for me.


So in other words, he's not perfectly happy with the way his life is going. Thanks for playing.

Are you fucking kidding me? Semantics? I didn't literally mean perfectly happy.

Grow up.


I know. You did try to, however.

If I had tried to I would have made one.

I'm just saying what comes to mind as it comes to mind.


Nonsensical fallacy. This is not how society is going at this point; the rich are getting richer while real wages for the workers have consistently dropped for decades.

Yet their standard of living has improved. Or... at least their oppurtunity at a good standard of living.

And as I said, the next ten years will likely bring more of that.


Therefore, nothing new.

It's new in a subtle way.


Wrong again.

Convincing.




Bye now.

[manic expression]

And so are they.

You just said they were apathetic, and now you're saying they have strong ideological convictions? Vintage ignorance.


That's the twisted use of the word I was referring to.

I know. I'm talking about your ideological stances.


It's not an inability, it's the ability to see that the social definition is twisted.

It's not twisted at all, it's scientific. Your definitions are either contradictory or nonexistent. It's not hard to see which one is right.


Of course it does. It serves them to do so.

This is true.


Does that make you feel better?

Hanging out with friends, listening to music, dancing and good food and drink makes me feel better.

Oh, and the fact that the interests of the working class are the same as the demands of the communist movement. I almost forgot that one.


Happiness isn't an idea.

And I'm pretty sure I connect better with mainstream Americans than you do.

Soulja Boy connects with mainstream America. Congratulations.


Reality doesn't suck for me.

That's because you ignore it.


Are you fucking kidding me? Semantics? I didn't literally mean perfectly happy.

Grow up.

It's not semantics, it's someone who would rather make more money.




If I had tried to I would have made one.

Sure....


Yet their standard of living has improved. Or... at least their oppurtunity at a good standard of living.

That's false, living standards for the majority of Americans have dropped as well. More Americans are uninsured, more Americans are homeless or in debt, more Americans are cutting back on luxuries that used to be taken for granted. Your stark lack of awareness about these consistent developments is to be expected.

Just a taste of reality:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/2008-03-01-truckers_N.htm


And as I said, the next ten years will likely bring more of that.

It will bring more consolidation of wealth, as it will bring the death of capitalism nearer.


It's new in a subtle way.

It's new in a nonexistent way. There is no change with Obama, and if you looked at his website you'd agree.


Convincing.

That's funny coming from someone who admits to making a futile argument.

[Joby]

Oh the liberal arrogance. Cumbaya wont stop the capitalist death squads.

Are you so fucking retarded that you actually believe that, when it gets down to it, you can actually win with armed confrontation?

[Joby]

Curious to see this. LSD, I always did think you incapable of being a revolutionary, and it seems I was right.

Hahahahahahahahahaha

That's pretty funny.

Hey LSD, I always knew you wouldn't be able to play in the NFL. Guess I was right, sitting here on my ass.

[Ultra-Violence]

LSD IM GOANNA MISS YOU I LOVED YOUR POST! YOU WERE AWSOME!

even tho i didnt know you that well

Good luck and i hope u have a nice journey in life maybe will run into eachother one day!

PEACE

[RNK]

*whistle* Vietnam...

[Ultra-Violence]

I personally think LSD's concerns are very valid; the Left movement is really not getting anywhere and I despise that. I enjoyed reading this thread in the Soviet-Empire:

Pessimism and Apathy (http://www.soviet-empire.com/ussr/viewtopic.php?t=43676)

I haven't given up hope that Capitalism will meet its end though; probably not in my lifetime, but if we all give up here the future generations will not be able to. We build the foundation, I think. I do have a question though; why, LSD, at a Leninist meeting did you develop these feelings, as I have seen more than once you had already not put much stock in the revolutionary potential of the Leninists. I mean, as far as I know you are (or were, as the case may be) an Anarchist - and I identify as one as well. The Anarchist movement inspires me to keep believing, we're the ones fighting for the 8 hour day, holding hands in the streets :cool: we're the ones with the faces covered by bandanas, we're the ones the riot cops chase down. Whoever they vote for, we are ungovernable. It keeps me going sometimes. I definitely acknowledge the Left needs a fire under it's ass pronto though. For instance, I got myself a warm, fuzzy feeling when Debora Aro told us all about how hard she's been working to help Rs2k, and how alot of members here helped out. I think we have comradeship and a level of unity, perhaps not as the Left, but maybe as Anarchists - I address this to you, LSD, and the other Anarchists - and we all know the movement has bugs. I don't lose hope... I don't want to lose hope. To think Capitalism will just grow into Imperialism and Fascism and keep milking the working class like a cow is fucking scary. I'm just venting though...

YOU HIT IT ON THE HEAD! i feel the same way thats why im always with the black block every time Rain or snow or sunlight it dont matter cuase im a Dreamer and i know one day things will change

And in this thread many people are talking about Modernizing the left WELL LET FUCKING DO IT WHAT THE HELL IS STOPING US WE HAVE THE GOD DAM INTERNET AND COMPUTERS AND MORE THAN ENOUGH RADICALS HERE TO FUCKING DO ANY THING! AND FOR YOU FUCKS WHO SAY NO IT CANT HAPEN! ITS BECUASE OF YOU SECRETARAIN FUCKS WHO ARE TOO FUCKING DOGMATIC! AND HAVE TO MUCH PRIDE TO ADMIT THEIR GOD DANG! FAULTS! ETC.......
im venting too now i feel better

[Joby]

YOU HIT IT ON THE HEAD! i feel the same way thats why im always with the black block every time Rain or snow or sunlight it dont matter cuase im a Dreamer and i know one day things will change

And in this thread many people are talking about Modernizing the left WELL LET FUCKING DO IT WHAT THE HELL IS STOPING US WE HAVE THE GOD DAM INTERNET AND COMPUTERS AND MORE THAN ENOUGH RADICALS HERE TO FUCKING DO ANY THING! AND FOR YOU FUCKS WHO SAY NO IT CANT HAPEN! ITS BECUASE OF YOU SECRETARAIN FUCKS WHO ARE TOO FUCKING DOGMATIC! AND HAVE TO MUCH PRIDE TO ADMIT THEIR GOD DANG! FAULTS! ETC.......
im venting too now i feel better

Very well said.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Ah... ;) Caps. Nonsensical baiting...

[manic expression]

Hahahahahahahahahaha

That's pretty funny.

Hey LSD, I always knew you wouldn't be able to play in the NFL. Guess I was right, sitting here on my ass.

Actually, as posters have said, LSD hasn't changed his ideas on anything, he's just admitted that he's not a revolutionary after all this time. I distinctly remember discussions with him where he opposed any real revolutionary change. So, yes, I did think he wasn't up for being a revolutionary, and I was right.

But then again, you're probably incapable of making a mature argument or assessment, sitting on your ass or otherwise.

[Joby]

Actually, as posters have said, LSD hasn't changed his ideas on anything, he's just admitted that he's not a revolutionary after all this time. I distinctly remember discussions with him where he opposed any real revolutionary change. So, yes, I did think he wasn't up for being a revolutionary, and I was right.

But then again, you're probably incapable of making a mature argument or assessment, sitting on your ass or otherwise.

I just find the drama entertaining. Like when you're a kid, and you wish you had known what a joke that lunch-room infighting waas.

Anyway, I'm atually pissing.

[STI]

Haven't you noticed something? We already have that- we've got the welfare state. Material security is guaranteed by right.

There are a couple things wrong with that statement.

Material security is guaranteed by "the welfare state" in word only. A single mother (the most common welfare recipient) with two children can't afford the average two-bedroom apartment in a major city like Toronto on what's budgetted for her housing on the welfare she gets... and this is in Canada!

That's not to mention the possibility of her car breaking down, the price of food going up, and her kids getting an education, or any of the other thousand things that can cost money and stress people the hell out... not to mention all the happiness-generating things she can't do because she's practically broke: eat out with friends, travel, and so on.

Granted, we're doing one hell of a lot better than just about any previous point in history, but that isn't at issue. A lot of people just don't have the luxury of "breathing easy" when it comes to money, and that's what counts.



Why is everyone therefore not happy?

Because the correlation isn't +1.0 and not everybody has an income high enough to make high happiness a probable outcome.

Do you not get correlation?


As for LSD, I plan on following-up on our discussion in the CC soon.

[RHIZOMES]

YOU HIT IT ON THE HEAD! i feel the same way thats why im always with the black block every time Rain or snow or sunlight it dont matter cuase im a Dreamer and i know one day things will change

And in this thread many people are talking about Modernizing the left WELL LET FUCKING DO IT WHAT THE HELL IS STOPING US WE HAVE THE GOD DAM INTERNET AND COMPUTERS AND MORE THAN ENOUGH RADICALS HERE TO FUCKING DO ANY THING! AND FOR YOU FUCKS WHO SAY NO IT CANT HAPEN! ITS BECUASE OF YOU SECRETARAIN FUCKS WHO ARE TOO FUCKING DOGMATIC! AND HAVE TO MUCH PRIDE TO ADMIT THEIR GOD DANG! FAULTS! ETC.......
im venting too now i feel better

Despite the ineloquence of your post, I agree with the general jist of it.

The party I am in is a merger between Trotskyists and Maoists, since we realized despite our different opinions on the history of Marxism, our opinions on NZ today and how to approach it were exactly the same. We need less bickering and more co-operating.

[RNK]

LOL MAOTSKYISTS.

Likewise, there's been a lot of development in terms of co-operation between the Maoist party I support and local Trotskyist tendencies. Seems a common if unlikely alliance.

The problem is a lot of revolutionaries have forgotten the basic practical aspects of our struggle and have focused too much on the idea that progress is only possible until basic issues of difference are resolved. They fail to realize that at this moment in time, our differences are largely immaterial; we can work out how the socialist society and communist society will look like when the time comes. For now, we have to work on getting to that point, and by and large like you said our tactics and strategies are largely the same. And where they are not, there is more often than not benefit in combining different tactics.

[Joby]

Despite the ineloquence of your post, I agree with the general jist of it.

The party I am in is a merger between Trotskyists and Maoists, since we realized despite our different opinions on the history of Marxism, our opinions on NZ today and how to approach it were exactly the same. We need less bickering and more co-operating.

How's the movement in NZ? Never been there, hope to maybe visit one day, though.

There seem to be quite a few posters on here from there.

[Faux Real]

Despite the ineloquence of your post, I agree with the general jist of it.

The party I am in is a merger between Trotskyists and Maoists, since we realized despite our different opinions on the history of Marxism, our opinions on NZ today and how to approach it were exactly the same. We need less bickering and more co-operating.
Weren't you Muslim a few months back? I noticed your sig says "Fuck Religion." :blink::p

[careyprice31]

"There are a couple things wrong with that statement.

Material security is guaranteed by "the welfare state" in word only. A single mother (the most common welfare recipient) with two children can't afford the average two-bedroom apartment in a major city like Toronto on what's budgetted for her housing on the welfare she gets... and this is in Canada!

That's not to mention the possibility of her car breaking down, the price of food going up, and her kids getting an education, or any of the other thousand things that can cost money and stress people the hell out... not to mention all the happiness-generating things she can't do because she's practically broke: eat out with friends, travel, and so on.

Granted, we're doing one hell of a lot better than just about any previous point in history, but that isn't at issue. A lot of people just don't have the luxury of "breathing easy" when it comes to money, and that's what counts."


i also have to add don't forget under said welfare system if said mother with two children attempts to get more money by getting a job they then will cut her check. and thats even though welfare is hardly living money. They're damned if they do and damned if they don't.

I think whoever gets welfare is pretty much playing russian roulette.

[hajduk]

Are you so fucking retarded that you actually believe that, when it gets down to it, you can actually win with armed confrontation?sleep..sleep..sleep..sleep..sleep..s leep..sleep..

[AGITprop]

YOU HIT IT ON THE HEAD! i feel the same way thats why im always with the black block every time Rain or snow or sunlight it dont matter cuase im a Dreamer and i know one day things will change

And in this thread many people are talking about Modernizing the left WELL LET FUCKING DO IT WHAT THE HELL IS STOPING US WE HAVE THE GOD DAM INTERNET AND COMPUTERS AND MORE THAN ENOUGH RADICALS HERE TO FUCKING DO ANY THING! AND FOR YOU FUCKS WHO SAY NO IT CANT HAPEN! ITS BECUASE OF YOU SECRETARAIN FUCKS WHO ARE TOO FUCKING DOGMATIC! AND HAVE TO MUCH PRIDE TO ADMIT THEIR GOD DANG! FAULTS! ETC.......
im venting too now i feel better
Yes, because wearing a bandana and intimidating police officers is very productive. You know they are workers too. They are only doing there job. Some are corrupt, of course, but material conditions require them to work, so they do. And us "sectarian fucks" try to actually to build movement whereas you my friend sound like a very counter productive idiot wasting his youth.

[manic expression]

I just find the drama entertaining. Like when you're a kid, and you wish you had known what a joke that lunch-room infighting waas.

Anyway, I'm atually pissing.

They have soap operas for that very reason, you know.

[PRC-UTE]

I suggest you take a break from those sects, they're not healthy.

If there's one thing that can cause a Marxist to despair it's hanging around them.

Well said; precisely.



Also, to further strengthen the point I made above, and I hope LSD and every other member will read this carefully:

Gigantic achievement in industry, enormously promising beginnings in agriculture, an extraordinary growth of the old industrial cities and a building of new ones, a rapid increase of the numbers of workers, a rise in cultural level and cultural demands – such are the indubitable results of the October revolution, in which the prophets of the old world tried to see the grave of human civilization. With the bourgeois economists we have no longer anything to quarrel over. Socialism has demonstrated its right to victory, not on the pages of Das Kapital, but in an industrial arena comprising a sixth part of the earths surface – not in the language of dialectics, but in the language of steel, cement and electricity. Even if the Soviet Union, as a result of internal difficulties, external blows and the mistakes of leadership, were to collapse – which we firmly hope will not happen – there would remain an earnest of the future this indestructible fact, that thanks solely to a proletarian revolution a backward country has achieved in less than 10 years successes unexampled in history.

This also ends the quarrel with the reformists in the workers movement. Can we compare for one moment their mouselike fussing with the titanic work accomplished by this people aroused to a new life by revolution? If in 1918 the Social-Democrats of Germany had employed the power imposed upon them by the workers for a socialist revolution, and not for the rescue of capitalism, it is easy to see on the basis of the Russian experience what unconquerable economic power would be possessed today by a socialist bloc of Central and Eastern Europe and a considerable part of Asia. The peoples of the world will pay for the historic crime of reformism with new wars and revolutions.

Going over to the side of the movement which betrayed the working-class and indirectly caused the misery and deaths of millions of people since 1918 is not only sad, but I would say reactionary.

Great quote, comrade. You're spot on.

One of LSD's flaws is that he is a philosophical leftist. I'm not so interested in the subject of whether or not the future socialist regime will respect the "rights" of reactionaries but whether or not it will eliminate child hunger, sex slavery, etc.

[Ultra-Violence]

Yes, because wearing a bandana and intimidating police officers is very productive. You know they are workers too. They are only doing there job. Some are corrupt, of course, but material conditions require them to work, so they do. And us "sectarian fucks" try to actually to build movement whereas you my friend sound like a very counter productive idiot wasting his youth.

and what the fuck are you doin may i ask i dont see you going into the "hoods" i dont see you in my motherfucking barrios! Were where you when the ice raids happend and continue to this day were you thier to stop the minute men!? i dont see any fucking "RADICALS" building no god dang movemtn in over here i aint wasting my youth im using what i got wich aint muchSO FUCK YOU!

alot of talk no walk

BUT WHAT I DO GOT IS A COMPUTER AND SOM E_MAILS AND THE INTERNET LETS USE IT!

LETS USE THIS FORUM AND BUILD A MOVEMENT PEOPLE! fuck

[Coffee Mug]

Wow; that was kind of the elephant in the room.



'If you've ever questioned beliefs of your own you are not alone.'




Lets do something realistic;
OBAMA '08

[Dean]

and what the fuck are you doin may i ask i dont see you going into the "hoods" i dont see you in my motherfucking barrios! Were where you when the ice raids happend and continue to this day were you thier to stop the minute men!? i dont see any fucking "RADICALS" building no god dang movemtn in over here i aint wasting my youth im using what i got wich aint muchSO FUCK YOU!

alot of talk no walk

BUT WHAT I DO GOT IS A COMPUTER AND SOM E_MAILS AND THE INTERNET LETS USE IT!

LETS USE THIS FORUM AND BUILD A MOVEMENT PEOPLE! fuck

Quiet rage is better; when the time comes to get revenge on society, you will be more powerful. However, if you continue to vent against people who share similar views, I don't hink you will either help the movement or make any friends. For one, you can't talk about making a movement and then *****ing at others for its nonexistance. You need to try to build it yourself, its nobody elses responsibility - or capability - to build your messianic movement when we don't even know what it is. Quit antagonizing leftists and make a proposal if you really give a damn.

[Ultra-Violence]

Quiet rage is better; when the time comes to get revenge on society, you will be more powerful. However, if you continue to vent against people who share similar views, I don't hink you will either help the movement or make any friends. For one, you can't talk about making a movement and then *****ing at others for its nonexistance. You need to try to build it yourself, its nobody elses responsibility - or capability - to build your messianic movement when we don't even know what it is. Quit antagonizing leftists and make a proposal if you really give a damn.

so your saying dont say nything at all? shit he was talking shit i talk shit back plain and simple and this has been talked about MORE than enough times and we talk and then argue and talk about how its not goana work when people dont even wanna try!?

[jacobin1949]

If you want power so bad, theres are rather simple rout that would give it to ya in about a generation or three...

but I don't think you'd like it

[RNK]

So by the end of this generatation, communism will exist in China? :lol:

[Sendo]

Wonderful system we have. When my father was 29 he had two children, my older bro and me, to raise and he had to find a job quickly. He dropped out of university and for the past thirty six years had towork at a job he hated to raise his family. The system wouldnt allow him to quit because if he quit thered be no money. He couldnt go to university cause he worked all day everyday. He couldnt find another job because he was unskilled at lots of other things. He was forced to sacrifice his happiness for us. What kind of a society is that, I will have a good life but my father spent his in depression. If the system was different my father could have been able to have both happiness and the well being of his family.

I knew some univ students I went to univ with who have $80,000 in tuition to payy off. No joke. And they still young, hardly more than rookies, with a debt like that.

Women are being mind-controlled to think that body hair.....normal and natural for all mammals......is somehow wrong. On them that is. But on a man its ok because they have a penis.

I kno it was an old post, but it sounded like cases I've hear too often, and see its inevitability under our system.

Without going into specifics: I have a (late) grandfather who got shafted by free-market economics in northern New York. He had a good job, but when your whole town is dependent on a certain company, and then that company just leaves, you're fucked. You're also really fucked when you and yours get sick and you still have to work to pay the bills.

Fast-forward to now. The son of this man took the lesson from this to be to never let this happen again, by playing the game as best he can and providing a better life for his children. And now it is my responsibility to do the same and, as my mother says, "not be a burden on society when I grow up."

But here comes the problem, my father works hard at a professional-level job (for the New York State's Medicare and Medicaid), so he'll have his pension, but costs keep rising and oil problems are here and food problems are on the horizon as climate "peculiarities" continue...so I don't know how ideal anyone's retirement will be. Maybe if we keep subsidizing Wal-Mart the capitalists will shower us with trickled-down water. Or maybe we all just need a couple shares of their stock.

Now as for me, graduating $80,000 in debt, hooray! Well, my college loves to breed bomb-makers and investment bankers, so maybe I'll get my money back with that nice sheepskin they give me in May. But there's a problem, I'm a History major who can't stand another year in a University. What can I do? Could I market some of my skills? Not really, not without the PhD. Oh, I know, I could resume martial arts study and open up a school someday...oh wait, the $80,000.

Well, now I'm going to teach English in East Asia since it's the only job I'm qualified for that isn't some cubicle. It looks neat, don't get me wrong, but I'll be living frugally the next two or three years at least.

But wait, those Economics guys, the Milton Friedmanite demagogues who sit around all day swapping stocks like baseball cards, the financial guys who will be "cutting costs" (jobs), the tech guys who always get recruited to make bombs....they'll be making at least three times what I will in September.

Forget me, how about the people not lucky enough to end up like my father, those sons of impoverished men who are just as debt-ridden, but with children to feed. How about the wars we fight which enrichen the tiniest minority, how about the poverty draft, how about dead Iraqis.

Then I realized one day that I was a socialist. I can never just play the game, be some unproductive middle-manager who watches corporate news and sticks his head in the sand when genocide happens, when people go hungry, when capitalism happens. I'm not making big changes right now but I support the people who act. I want everyone to know that many people are very left-wing, even in the USA, they just lack the political understanding of everything (compare polls of support for "welfare" vs. obligation of the rich to pay for the relief of poor people). But they all have a bullshit detector making noise. The circle jerks of Russophile theoreticians are a minority of the left in my experience. The majority seem interested in fighting symptoms of capitalism and go off in NGOs, though often splintering in the process. I don't worry about the antiquarianism or the circle jerks, they aren't pulling anyone away. The discontented will find someway to help, or protest, etc.

PS: Less hair on women could be personal preference. Lots of women get OLD, that's natural, but I'd prefer women who aren't elderly. Lots of chicks are naturally Caucasian, too. Society mind-controls me to like girls of my own race, especially short blonds, but I don't. And chest hair on men is quite possibly the bossest thing ever, next to a Stalin-esque moustache (very authoritative).

PPS: Don't take that too seriously

PPPS: No fat chicks either.

[JDHURF]

I may post a much longer and thorough response when I have the time, and when I read the entire OP, but, I got to the point where LSD claims that he doesn't believe a revolution is foreseeable in the near future and that history doesn't go in circles, I had to stop there. History is, in fact, both cyclically progressive and intermittent, you can take any social issue and this has been the case historically. The overthrow of feudalism, the abolishment of slavery, the emancipation of women, the ever growing liberation movement for gays, etc.
Do I see a revolution on the horizon? Well, are you only talking about Montreal? What about Venezuela? What about Latin America? What about, say, the rest of the world. I admit that I don't foresee a socialist revolution here in the United States within my lifetime, but, does that mean I should give up? That I shouldn't keep the tradition and the movement alive?
If history is indeed cyclically progressive, as it surely appears to be, then we are no doubt living within a regressive time within the cycle, in many parts of the industrial world, especially here in the US. In the US the labor movement has been crushed, but, remember, it had been crushed in the twenties also, and then look what happened in the thirties, I could find you many requiem's for the labor movement in the twenties, only for the thirties to give rise to one of the strongest periods of the labor movement, it was then again crushed, all activism was crushed during the forties and fifties, but then look what happened in the sixties, yes, we are again living within an era where the movements are again relatively weak and embattled, but, the so-called anti-globalization movement is international, the WSF is promising, the demonstrations around the world, such as the famous one in Seattle, promise a strong rebirth of the movement.
How many bourgeois propagandists have penned eulogies for the socialist movement only for socialism to rise again stronger than ever? How many more Fukuyama's shall there be? How many more LSD's? Plenty I would wager.

LSD's problem is that he does not realize that revolutions are not made overnight. Our task is not glamorous, it is not easy; we have the unhappy task of rebuilding a movement, of reorganizing, of reformulating the tasks and methods, of opposing the greatest powers in all of history, it is not the easiest task by any means, or even the most rewarding, but it is we who continue to struggle in every way in which we can who keep lit the flickering flame of socialist revolution in the windy and stormy night so that there can be a revolution in the future, and I do not doubt for a second that it is entirely possible that there will come a day when the oppressive, exploitive, domineering, hierarchical social system of state-corporate capitalism will be forever laid to rest by the glorious revolution of the people organized against it.

No Gods No Masters

[Sendo]

I would also be curious to know LSD's religious beliefs, or those of any reactionary. I ask because any sincere belief in anything "special" to life, any reason to treat humanity well that isn't contractual, might lead one to mourn the billions who have to sift through the trash of the rich for food and water. I'm a Buddhist and also have long been sympathetic towards Liberation Theology. I feel that my spiritual tendencies demand me to be more compassionate, and it was during my younger bouts of nihilism that I felt the least concern for anyone but myself. It seems bizarre when the religious uphold capitalism as the best system when it undermines the most basic tenets of many religions.

That being said, most people here are likely non-religious. I'm not trying to pull on heartstrings, just curious for philosophical and psychological inquiry. What LSD is saying seems to evoke a universal sense of nihilism, as if he lost faith in a religion, that the leftist community became his God, his everything, and it suddenly seemed as real as Santa Claus seems to a ten-year-old.

[redstar2000]

LSd is unnecessarily discouraged by the futility lingering of Trotskyism. In all groups of trotskyists, theres an air of futility about them. They all know in the backs of their minds they missed their chance in the USSR in the late 1920s.

Just because trots seems like a waste of time, it does not mean a social democracy is the only alternative. All it takes is another war, to radicalize a portion of the poulation and if Marx is right there will be another war, there always is. Its easier to see a world divided by rival imperialism. An on going struggle between China, Japan, and the US for
global ecomonics evenually will lead to war. Such wars generally mash optimistic illusions people have about their own political structure.

LSD is old enough to realize the perils of jumping to conclusion of pieces of history that are too small to make a sound judgement from.

[Sentinel]

Comrades, he is back. And he is back with style!

Reactionaries everywhere, tremble! :D

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hey, Red, great to see you back!!!!

[Red October]

Dun Dun Dun!

[Luís Henrique]

Welcome back, you old angry red man!

Luís Henrique

[RebelDog]

Hey, welcome back. Get stuck in.:)

[Pawn Power]

To continue the derailment of this thread...welcome back redstar!

[Marsella]

LSd is unnecessarily discouraged by the futility lingering of Trotskyism. In all groups of trotskyists, theres an air of futility about them. They all know in the backs of their minds they missed their chance in the USSR in the late 1920s.

Just because trots seems like a waste of time, it does not mean a social democracy is the only alternative. All it takes is another war, to radicalize a portion of the poulation and if Marx is right there will be another war, there always is. Its easier to see a world divided by rival imperialism. An on going struggle between China, Japan, and the US for
global ecomonics evenually will lead to war. Such wars generally mash optimistic illusions people have about their own political structure.

LSD is old enough to realize the perils of jumping to conclusion of pieces of history that are too small to make a sound judgement from.

You forgot something (!) :

:redstar2000:

[Le Libérer]

Actually it was discussed using the smoking icon, he chose not too, for personal reasons. :-)

[AGITprop]

and what the fuck are you doin may i ask i dont see you going into the "hoods" i dont see you in my motherfucking barrios! Were where you when the ice raids happend and continue to this day were you thier to stop the minute men!? i dont see any fucking "RADICALS" building no god dang movemtn in over here i aint wasting my youth im using what i got wich aint muchSO FUCK YOU!

alot of talk no walk

BUT WHAT I DO GOT IS A COMPUTER AND SOM E_MAILS AND THE INTERNET LETS USE IT!

LETS USE THIS FORUM AND BUILD A MOVEMENT PEOPLE! fuck

Alot of talk and no walk? Well your assumptions reflect your immaturity. You have no idea how many people, including myself, dedicate their life to building a movement within the contextual conditions of society. This does not include alienating ourselves from the working class by masking our faces and running around creating chaos. I understand your impatience and frustration with the movement or lack thereof but these things do not materialize out of thin air, much to the dismay of many people on the board.

[Honggweilo]

RedStars return and consistancy is certainly a compensation for the defaitism evoked in LSD by some silly MIT sect :lol:


You forgot something (!) :
:redstar2000:
win! except we should make one without a cigarette since he quit ^^

[Marsella]

Actually it was discussed using the smoking icon, he chose not too, for personal reasons. :-)

I understand :-/

I am just so used to seeing the :redstar2000:

What about the one that looked like http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/teufel/devil-smiley-029.gif

http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/teufel/devil-smiley-017.gif http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/sauer/angry-smiley-050.gif http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/sauer/angry-smiley-055.gif http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/sauer/angry-smiley-005.gif ???

Edit: that last one is similiar to RS2K's avatar. :-p

[AGITprop]

RedStars return and consistancy is certainly a compensation for the defaitism evoked in LSD by some silly MIT sect :lol:


IMT, for your benefit comrade. :)

[Marsella]

IMT, for your benefit comrade. :)

His lexdysic must be playing up. :P :O

[Sentinel]

The devil smiley was his special for the Religion forum.

[RedStarOverChina]

Hahah, finally.

Welcome back and I hope you are doing well.

[RedAnarchist]

Welcome back RS2k, nice to see you again:D

[Bright Banana Beard]

Shoot, I better hide from him. lol hey RS2K, I did read your article,so nice to meet you.

[Dean]

LSd is unnecessarily discouraged by the futility lingering of Trotskyism. In all groups of trotskyists, theres an air of futility about them. They all know in the backs of their minds they missed their chance in the USSR in the late 1920s.

Just because trots seems like a waste of time, it does not mean a social democracy is the only alternative. All it takes is another war, to radicalize a portion of the poulation and if Marx is right there will be another war, there always is. Its easier to see a world divided by rival imperialism. An on going struggle between China, Japan, and the US for
global ecomonics evenually will lead to war. Such wars generally mash optimistic illusions people have about their own political structure.

LSD is old enough to realize the perils of jumping to conclusion of pieces of history that are too small to make a sound judgement from.

While I don't usually care for sectarianism, it's good to see you back. And feeling better, I hope?

[JimFar]

Welcome back redstar2000. I trust that your reappearance on this board is indicative of an improvement in your health.

[RNK]

Blaming LSD's idiocy on Trotskyism is like Trotskyists blaming Stalinism for the failure of every revolution in the 20th century. To LSD's own admission the Trots had little to do with it -- he said himself he'd never come to terms with his inability to comprehend revolutionary ideas or his deep passion for liberalism.

[apathy maybe]

Shush! Stop introducing facts in to this Trot bash! The Trot is an evil beast and needs to be purged!


And way, yeh. For those who are interested, I'll be starting a discussion in the anarchist forum soon about anarchism and action.

As I've said, to be an "anarchist" does not actually require much from a person. The question then is, can you be an anarchist and want to use or actually use oppressive methods to reach anarchy?

Where can you draw the line between someone's actions and their professed beliefs?


LSD continues (apparently) to desire an anarchistic type society, yet thinks that it isn't viable or plausible at this time. So, rather then fight for it, he drops out of that fight, and fights the short fight, the reformed fight.

Does this make him not an anarchist? I'll discuss these ideas and more, later, in a thread in the anarchist forum.

[careyprice31]

Shush! Stop introducing facts in to this Trot bash! The Trot is an evil beast and needs to be purged!


And way, yeh. For those who are interested, I'll be starting a discussion in the anarchist forum soon about anarchism and action.

As I've said, to be an "anarchist" does not actually require much from a person. The question then is, can you be an anarchist and want to use or actually use oppressive methods to reach anarchy?

Where can you draw the line between someone's actions and their professed beliefs?


LSD continues (apparently) to desire an anarchistic type society, yet thinks that it isn't viable or plausible at this time. So, rather then fight for it, he drops out of that fight, and fights the short fight, the reformed fight.

Does this make him not an anarchist? I'll discuss these ideas and more, later, in a thread in the anarchist forum.


I wish you people would leave the Trots alone. jeez.

We have more important things to worry about.

I dont go around bashing stalinists or Maoists, or hoxhaists, they have been really great to me on the forum I have no issues with them. They help to do the job, in their way.

our job is to, or should be, to form a powerful UNITED front to stop the rightists.

If we bicker among each other because we have different opinions about different leaders in history....

Its not that important. Seriously.

[Lector Malibu]

I wish you people would leave the Trots alone. jeez.

We have more important things to worry about.

I dont go around bashing stalinists or Maoists, or hoxhaists, they have been really great to me on the forum I have no issues with them. They help to do the job, in their way.

our job is to, or should be, to form a powerful UNITED front to stop the rightists.

If we bicker among each other because we have different opinions about different leaders in history....

Its not that important. Seriously.

Though I can get pretty pissy on certain debates in politics:) I agree fully with what your saying here.

[Severian]

....I realized that he really believes that in the forseeable future the "proletariat" are going to "rise up" and establish a "workers state". And in that same moment I realized that I didn't.

I've been saying you're basically a liberal for some time; you needed this whole long post to say you've finally realized the same thing?

Heh. I posted that actually before I got to the end of your post where you basically end up saying that. With disclaimers. Yeah, you really didn't need that whole long post; you said it all in the one paragraph I quoted.


I don't know what the future holds, but I do know that history does not move in circles. The age of street revolutions, in the first world at least, is over. This cannot be the "end of history", but neither is this 1929 redux.

And a workers' revolution cannot be anything other than 1929 redux? History knows a number of examples of workers' revolutions taking different forms under different circumstances....of course the future will hold others more different yet. I think there's a real failure of imagination here.


In this article, the IMT provides, albeit somewhat snarkily, a reasonable condensation of Obama's positions. Now their conclusion, of course, was that Obama was a "just anothoer bourgeois politician" and that his politics were ipso facto indistinguishable from those of George W. Bush.

Except they had just spent twelve good paragraphs outlining how they were exactly not like George W. Bush's.

If in fact they said or implied all bourgeois politicians are indistinguishable, that's their error. It's not necessary to deny the differences between bourgeois politicians to oppose all of them, to insist that workers need to remain politically independent, or to emphasize the importance of mass action over electoralism....


Every year, in some little Trotksyist rag that no one reads, an article about how we need a "working class party" and the "revolution" is just on the horizon.

"on the horizon" may be a straw man, or if that is the IMT's attitude, their problem.

It's interesting to note that in 1916, Lenin thought he probably wouldn't see a revolution in his lifetime....but Lenin and other Bolsheviks continued working towards one and preparing to join and lead one regardless.

It's bad politics to write the same article again and again, yes. The answer, I'd suggest, is something you've never seriously considered: engaging in the everyday struggles of today in order to move towards the revolution of tomorrow. Aka "mass work".

No political group today is really good at this. Left political groups are, after all, a product of their times as much as anything else is.

Some are better than others, and there's only one way for any of us to get any better at it: to do it.

That's never been your approach, so it seems awful ironic to me when you start decrying people who "write the same article over and over", etc. It's always seemed to me - and CyM - that you and Redstar have been practicing "Second Coming communism" where the abstractly proclaimed revolutionary goal has no connection to the events and struggles of today.

So for you, in your declaration of liberalism, so say that revolutionary politics boils down to that....it's a widespread problem, to be sure, but you've always been an unusually bad case of it yourself.

Still are; you don't say anything about any concrete struggle of today in your post.....unless one counts the relatively content-free Obama campaign as a struggle!


the one thing I'm realizing is that the older I get, the less I'm certain of. The fact is, the world is an incredibly complicated place and none of us have a good answer to the mess we're in.

I'll agree with that. On this board I've often been impatient with the simplistic thinking of inexperienced youth. Yet...there's something to be said for the overly certain, inexperienced enthusiasm of youth as well.

Nothing much is ever accomplished by those who are paralyzed by uncertainty. To borrow a quote (from this novel) (http://www.baen.com/library/067187800X/067187800X___5.htm):
"And if there is one thing that historians know, it's that nothing great was ever achieved except by those who were filled with passion. Their passion may have been illogical, even bizarre to modern people. Their understanding of the world and what they were doing may have been false. It usually was. But they were not afraid to act, guided by whatever ideas they had in their possession. Do not sneer at such people. You would not be here without them."

I'd also suggest that you should know something about Marxism before rejecting it....Marx didn't claim to know what communism would look like any more than you do, for example. Didn't make the predictions you say about the future of capitalism, either (though he probably didn't expect it to persist this long.)

What else? If anyone's comparing Obama to FDR, they're quite wrong. Roosevelt adopted a number of major social reforms - because he was under pressure from below. (He was also one hell of a violent unionbuster, before anyone gets too carried away with the Roosevelt mythology.)

Obama isn't under that kind of pressure, so he isn't proposing anything comparable to the New Deal reforms. On health care, for example, the proposal is....for individuals to buy their own medical insurance. About all you can say for him is that unlike Clinton, he doesn't propose to garnish the wages of workers who don't buy medical insurance.

Obama's actually has more support from middle-class than working-class Democrats, as many pundits have noticed. It's because his appeal is all about personal charisma and the vaguest possible promises of change. Most working people, when picking a bourgeois politician, pragmatically choose whoever seems likely to screw us over least.

[Ultra-Violence]

This might be late BUT ZOMFG RS2k IS BACK! WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOW

love u man really do!

[redstar2000]

Its a shame that LSD is restricted to OI, but social democracy IS an opposing idealogy. which was not obvious in time Marx and Engles, both had a high opinion of social democracy and who were both wrong. It became obvious at the time of WWI,Only one source of social democracy resisted the stupid temptation of military enthusiasm. That also is still true. SOcial democratic parties are not notable for their opposition to AMerican intervention in the Middle East.

LSD is foutunate that he has not yet encountered any of the slimeballs that represent social democracy on the east coast of the US. They are unbelievably reprehencable characters. The are DIRTY bastards. The ones I've met would murder Luxenburg and Lievknecht today.

Social democracy excepts the propostion, that capitalist and can gently talked into not acting like Capitalists. This is a proposerous proposition.

(please excuse any typo's, Debora is typing, I usualloy pride myself with perfect spelling. :) Lord knows if I had to type it what it would look like.

[RedAnarchist]

Its a shame that LSD is restricted to OI, but social democracy IS an opposing idealogy. which was not obvious in time Marx and Engles, both had a high opinion of social democracy and who were both wrong. It became obvious at the time of WWI,Only one source of social democracy resisted the stupid temptation of military enthusiasm. That also is still true. SOcial democratic parties are not notable for their opposition to AMerican intervention in the Middle East.

LSD is foutunate that he has not yet encountered any of the slimeballs that represent social democracy on the east coast of the US. They are unbelievably reprehencable characters. The are DIRTY bastards. The ones I've met would murder Luxenburg and Lievknecht today.

Social democracy excepts the propostion, that capitalist and can gently talked into not acting like Capitalists. This is a proposerous proposition.

(please excuse any typo's, Debora is typing, I usualloy pride myself with perfect spelling. :) Lord knows if I had to type it what it would look like.

Like all liberals, LSD doesn't want to do any actual work to achive any real change. Instead, he'd rather just try and reform the system, even though he knows that the system is unreformable.

[Dejavu]

It might appear that LSD desires a socialist social order but desires a capitalist economic order. I agree with some of the more hardcore Socialists here that I don't think capitalism and socialism can exist together in the long run. It should be only one way.

Social and Economic Capitalism = Free market with tiny government or anarchy.

Social and Economic Socialism = Communism, state or anarchy.

Social 'Capitalism' ( see Nationalism) Economic Socialism = I think impossible( since capitalism is basically only an economic system) but could be a case for Fascism.

Social Socialism Economic Capitalism = Most common. Usually Mixed Economies and various democratic regimes ( Social Democracy , etc).

[R_P_A_S]

I think what LSD is saying is pretty much straight up down the alley for many people.. maybe people who have never in their life experience REAL exploitation and the REAL hardships of imperialism... Yes it's easy to be frustrated with all this "ism groups" specially if you live in a pretty well off country like Canada, the U.S., Britain and what not... But the reality is that the majority of the world can not be approached with your 'conclusion' LSD... I agree with lots of the things you say though... But I will never throw in the towel.

As i learn more I'm more convinced that Marx wasn't 'dead on' but he sure as hell had many valid points. I don't sit here and believe things are gonna pan out like He wrote or any of his 'Marxist disciples' think it will go down.. But I am certain that something, somewhere by somebody is going to stand up and fight for humanity and social justice.

[Joby]

I think what LSD is saying is pretty much straight up down the alley for many people.. maybe people who have never in their life experience REAL exploitation and the REAL hardships of imperialism... Yes it's easy to be frustrated with all this "ism groups" specially if you live in a pretty well off country like Canada, the U.S., Britain and what not... But the reality is that the majority of the world can not be approached with your 'conclusion' LSD... I agree with lots of the things you say though... But I will never throw in the towel.

Many people have kids, and the thought of bringing about some Che Guevara beards-n-jeans culture isn't that exciting.

I'm glad that LSD has changed.

Bunch of fuckin armchair revolutionaries. :laugh:

[Severian]

Its a shame that LSD is restricted to OI, but social democracy IS an opposing idealogy.

I don't know why people keep going on about social democracy. LSD's a liberal, and said so himself (with disclaimers about all labels being limited, which of course they are.)

'Course, social democracy's tending to shade into liberalism more and more. The British Labour Party becoming more and more like the U.S. Democratic Party, etc.

But there is, historically, a difference: social democracy was part of the working-class movement, a large part. Social democratic leaders acted as the bosses' agents in the labor movement, "labor lieutenants of the capitalist class", but self-evidently they had to be part of the labor movement to do that.

Liberalism is a ruling-class tendency - its leaders are the representatives of the capitalist class, and usually part of the capitalist class.

[JimFar]

redstar2000 wrote:


which was not obvious in time Marx and Engles, both had a high opinion of social democracy and who were both wrong.Both Marx & Engels were among the founders of the SPD in Germany. One of Engels's proudest boasts was how the party had refused to vote for war credits for the Kaiser's government. It was not too many years after Engels's death, that the SPD would reverse its stance and place loyalty to the Fatherland over loyalty to the international working class.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Its a shame that LSD is restricted to OI, but social democracy IS an opposing ideology. which was not obvious in time Marx and Engels, both had a high opinion of social democracy and who were both wrong. It became obvious at the time of WWI,Only one source of social democracy resisted the stupid temptation of military enthusiasm. That also is still true. Social-democratic parties are not notable for their opposition to American intervention in the Middle East.

LSD is fortunate that he has not yet encountered any of the slimeballs that represent social democracy on the east coast of the US. They are unbelievably reprehensible characters. The are DIRTY bastards. The ones I've met would murder Luxemburg and Liebknecht today.

Social democracy excepts the proposition, that capitalist and can gently talked into not acting like Capitalists. This is a proposterous proposition.


I don't know why people keep going on about social democracy. LSD's a liberal, and said so himself (with disclaimers about all labels being limited, which of course they are.)

'Course, social democracy's tending to shade into liberalism more and more. The British Labour Party becoming more and more like the U.S. Democratic Party, etc.

But there is, historically, a difference: social democracy was part of the working-class movement, a large part. Social democratic leaders acted as the bosses' agents in the labor movement, "labor lieutenants of the capitalist class", but self-evidently they had to be part of the labor movement to do that.

The problem goes as far as the label itself: social democracy. The original idea of merging Marxism with the workers' movement (not just the "labour movement") got twisted into one of merging petit-bourgeois interpretations of Marxism with the broader popular "movement" (a reduced workers' movement in the form of a "labour movement", petit-bourgeois sympathizers, small and mid-level managers, etc.)

[STI]

LSD seems to have dropped any pretense of actually discussing with revolutionary leftists.

One can't help but wonder why :rolleyes:

[LSD]

I've been saying you're basically a liberal for some time; you needed this whole long post to say you've finally realized the same thing?


Apparently. Would you have preferred a PM? It isn't as though anyone required you to read this thread.

My post (or "open letter" as I so self-righeously put it) was not intended merely as a notice of changed political allegiances, but as a bearing of my soul. If I had merely wanted to resign from this board, I could have done so quietly; more to the point, had I indeed been a "closeted liberal" all these years, I could have (and would have) maintained my position and continued happily along as administrator. After all, it isn't as though my position was ever threatened.

Indeed, I would say that I was probably one of the most popular administrators on the board. I regularly polled above 90% in approval votes and was routinely cited by other posters.

No, I made this post because I thought it nescessary to drop a little honesty into this pool of self-delusion. Because I've grown up and realized that the world is a far messier place than 19th century treasure maps may spell out.

You can dismiss me as another "liberal traitor", indeed I'm certain you will; but I don't care anymore. Just remember, you're the one on the wrong end of history. You're the one clinging to a dream that has died more times than it's been born.

Just remember that, in the end, those of us who are sensible and pragmatic and willing to compromise, even when it goes against ideological principle, we make up the majority. You've beaten us down road after road of dead end fantasies, it's time for us to rise up and say no more. We're finished, we're done.

Your time has passed.


I don't know why people keep going on about social democracy. LSD's a liberal, and said so himself (with disclaimers about all labels being limited, which of course they are.)

Actually, what I said was that you may call me a liberal, but I don't use that word myself. The disclaimers weren't there for legal reasons, they were there becasue I reject the political labeling system on which you base your analyses.


But there is, historically, a difference: social democracy was part of the working-class movement, a large part. Social democratic leaders acted as the bosses' agents in the labor movement, "labor lieutenants of the capitalist class", but self-evidently they had to be part of the labor movement to do that.

Liberalism is a ruling-class tendency - its leaders are the representatives of the capitalist class, and usually part of the capitalist class.

i.e.,
Social democrat = working class traitors
Liberal = capitalist agent

You like that, don't you? Keeps everything very neat. How nice for you. The world must be a very simple place in your head. Forget about people, forget about reality, it's all about class. Understand the class, understand the person, right? That's what Marx said, "being determines consciousness". Ergo, a proletariat[i] is "good" and a [i]bourgeois is "bad".

Of course, the "good" (proletariat) might be a rapist and the "bad" (bourgeois) might be a philanthropist, but who cares. It's all about class, right? Nevermind the complexities of life, nevermind the individual, never mind anything but blind faith in a backwards reductionist ideology that should have died out fifty years ago.

And you wonder why the world still hates you. Not you personally, of course. They don't know you. But they know your type. Full of bright ideas and "revolutionary" vigour. So absolutely certain of your supreme certainty.


Its a shame that LSD is restricted to OI, but social democracy IS an opposing idealogy.

Hi redstar, nice to see you back online.

And I don't disagree, I do belong in OI. I oppose the ideology of this board. In fact, I oppose all ideologies that seek to impose their supremecy over the rest of us. And, yes, that includes your somewhat clouded version of "communism".

'Cause as much as severian may represent the Leninist wing of this particular psych ward, in the end, you're no better. You're somewhat more coherent and a litle less romantic than the typical Marxist, but you're still holding on to a fantasy.

You've rejected the obvious nonsense, but your alternative is no better. "Communism without the crap", a purified, rarified form of "communism" so austere that it can only exist in your own mind ....or in some distant unnamed future. In other words, you've dreamed of utopia, as we all have. But you have no political relevence. So you rant and rage against religion, you cry against injustice, and make long grandiose proclamations on the death of Leninism.

And you're right, you're right. Leninism is is dead. And something new must come to replace it. But that something new will not come out of the "revolutionary" movement, it won't be a Marxism 2.0. Marxism doesn't need to be revised, it needs to be replaced. And so what we need to do in the here and now is focus on what we can do in the here and now. And that does not include making preperations for some sort of grand proletarian uprising.

The really ironic part of all of this is that I suspect you agree with me, that you know that there won't be a revolution any time soon.

But I'm the one restricted.

That's OK though, I don't mind. Everyone needs something to believe in. Some people find Jesus, you've found Marx.

Whatever floats your boat.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Just remember, you're the one on the wrong end of history.You realize, of course, that socialism has not dwindled to the same level of insignificance as (outright) fascism, Georgism, feudalism, and lassiez faire capitalism. Indeed the pink wave in Latin America and communist (democratic) victory in Cyprus are stunning feats; perhaps not revolutionary, but neither were most gains won by socialists in history. One could have just as easily said social democracy was dead in the 1980s.


Just remember that, in the end, those of us who are sensible and pragmatic and willing to compromise, even when it goes against ideological principle, we make up the majority.[...] of every group. I would recommend visiting DemocraticUnderground.com, FreeRepublic.com, and RonPaulforums.com before trying to levy a charge at Leftists that exists everywhere.


Of course, the "good" (proletariat) might be a rapist and the "bad" (bourgeois) might be a philanthropist, but who cares. And anyone who applies Marxist analysis would not make such sweeping generalizations. Can you provide even remotely-alike cases where a Leftist got behind a rapist simply because he/she was a worker? Philanthropy is all well and good, but the numbers are startling: why are the least generous people those who make over $10 million? http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/19/national/19give.html?adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1206446607-NhHohs47qLepOWw94XDxfQ

And you're right, you're right. Leninism is is dead. And something new must come to replace it. But that something new will not come out of the "revolutionary" movement, it won't be a Marxism 2.0. Marxism doesn't need to be revised, it needs to be replaced. And so what we need to do in the here and now is focus on what we can do in the here and now. And that does not include making preperations for some sort of grand proletarian uprising.

The really ironic part of all of this is that I suspect you agree with me, that you know that there won't be a revolution any time soon.Quite a few members here have publicly espoused a belief that a "revolution" will not come immediately. Furthermore, some members have discussed in detail where their voting allegiance will be in the upcoming 2008 elections: Obama and Gravel being the most common names thrown around in the pot.

Few members here believe in ignoring incremental change. You're constructing an opponent that most RevLeft users also reject.

[Herman]

The really ironic part of all of this is that I suspect you agree with me, that you know that there won't be a revolution any time soon.

I don't think anyone disagrees with you here, so you're basically arguing with invisible people.


No, I made this post because I thought it nescessary to drop a little honesty into this pool of self-delusion. Because I've grown up and realized that the world is a far messier place than 19th century treasure maps may spell out.

Oh, you've grown up! Of course, silly young leftists! Unfortunately, such arguments fall flat because you know that there are members here who are older than you.


You can dismiss me as another "liberal traitor", indeed I'm certain you will; but I don't care anymore. Just remember, you're the one on the wrong end of history. You're the one clinging to a dream that has died more times than it's been born.

Could you please tell me how many times have liberal revolutions or reforms failed in the 18th and 19th century...? Oh but wait, they were just dreams... they were at the wrong end of history! Why bother idealizing... it leads to nothing, right?


Just remember that, in the end, those of us who are sensible and pragmatic and willing to compromise, even when it goes against ideological principle, we make up the majority. You've beaten us down road after road of dead end fantasies, it's time for us to rise up and say no more. We're finished, we're done.

And you represent all these people, right? I mean, you claim that you are the majority, so I assume they officialy chose you as their representative. So i'd like to download these official world documents which can account for you being their chosen one.


Your time has passed.

:lol:

[Schrödinger's Cat]

LSD, - I don't mean to draw any metaphorical parallels - but your statement about the communist movement's time passing reminds me of the infamous "We will bury you."

[Bluetongue]

RevLeft pretty much soured me on communism. It's sad to realize that the majority of people who support revolutionary socialism these days do so not because of the inherent validity of the proposition, but rather because being an oppressed revolutionary somehow validates their various mental dysfunctions.

Communism has to die. It's too tainted an idea to ever capture the hearts and minds of the people at large. Thus revolution - when you know your idea is untenable, the only thing to do is to enforce your beliefs violently. Violent revolution in a modern democracy? To what end?

Nevertheless, consumer capitalism is ruinous. Do you know that when a host is infect with two strains of a disease at the same time, the most virulent and deadly strain always wins? The nation-economy that can grab the most resources and deprive others of those resources *will* win, but it will win a dead and blighted earth. Global capitalism is a parasite, but it has no other host infect when this world is used up. World government and sustainability, these are still worthy and pertinent goals.

Once, someone asked my why I devoted my life to helping control diseases, when most of the people I save will just starve anyway. I thought about it and said, "I'm not just saving them. I'm saving myself."

The real revolution begins with you. Live what you believe.

[redstar2000]

Americans seem programmed to behave like hogs at feeding time. It is difficult to imagine people so uncivilized living in a communist society. In that sense, LSD cannot be blamed for viewing my vision as a fantasy. Hes got a point. Eat the whole world. I think guys like Bush would swallow it if they could figure out a way to get it down their throats.

Americans drop all pretense of dignity and yell and squeal like hogs at feeding time. So I can see LSD's point.

[Bud Struggle]

RevLeft pretty much soured me on communism. It's sad to realize that the majority of people who support revolutionary socialism these days do so not because of the inherent validity of the proposition, but rather because being an oppressed revolutionary somehow validates their various mental dysfunctions.

Communism has to die. It's too tainted an idea to ever capture the hearts and minds of the people at large. Thus revolution - when you know your idea is untenable, the only thing to do is to enforce your beliefs violently. Violent revolution in a modern democracy? To what end?

Nevertheless, consumer capitalism is ruinous. Do you know that when a host is infect with two strains of a disease at the same time, the most virulent and deadly strain always wins? The nation-economy that can grab the most resources and deprive others of those resources *will* win, but it will win a dead and blighted earth. Global capitalism is a parasite, but it has no other host infect when this world is used up. World government and sustainability, these are still worthy and pertinent goals.

Once, someone asked my why I devoted my life to helping control diseases, when most of the people I save will just starve anyway. I thought about it and said, "I'm not just saving them. I'm saving myself."

The real revolution begins with you. Live what you believe.

Pretty darned good post from my perspective.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Communism has to die. It's too tainted an idea to ever capture the hearts and minds of the people at large.

Thankfully liberalism sustained the same scathing insults.

[Bud Struggle]

Thankfully liberalism sustained the same scathing insults.

And all that was left was Conservatism to do the will of the people.

(Hey! Capitalism doesn't die easy. :laugh:)

[Bilan]

Many people have kids, and the thought of bringing about some Che Guevara beards-n-jeans culture isn't that exciting.

I'm glad that LSD has changed.

Bunch of fuckin armchair revolutionaries. :laugh:

You'd find that not that many of us are "arm chair" revolutionaries (Though, definitley some are).

Essentially, you're going to have to do better than that. :)

[careyprice31]

"Of course, the "good" (proletariat) might be a rapist and the "bad" (bourgeois) might be a philanthropist"

I said this before. not everyone in a certain class will be the same. Some proletarians are better people than others. Some capitalists are better people than other capitalists.

I don't see how any leftist can deny this.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Pretty darned good post from my perspective.

You obviously haven't read up on Marx's criticism of this idealist "let's set up a commune or live an individual communist life" BS. :rolleyes:

There's a reason why the early "communal" (and context-twisting) Xianity FAILED miserably at poaching away the "nationalistic" (in the pre-bourgeois sense) and context-heavy Jewish population and had to morph into the semi-pagan, still-context-twisting phenomenon that it is today. :)


And all that was left was Conservatism to do the will of the people.

So where's the homophobic constitutional amendment you're clamouring for? Or what about the sub-prime mess? :laugh:

[thejambo1]

i was into left communist/socialist politics around 20 years ago and got very disillussioned, i have come back to left politics, anarchism, after a personal journey where i embraced many different things. i still believe revolution is possible, probably even more so as i get older. you can get pissed off at dry meetings but there is still a lot of good people out there that can and hopefully will bring it all about.

[Bud Struggle]

i was into left communist/socialist politics around 20 years ago and got very disillussioned, i have come back to left politics, anarchism, after a personal journey where i embraced many different things. i still believe revolution is possible, probably even more so as i get older. you can get pissed off at dry meetings but there is still a lot of good people out there that can and hopefully will bring it all about.

I was there too, my friend I was "lost" as the song said--but now I am "found!"

Here's where I found deliverence! http://www.nationalreview.com/

It taught me who I am and where I am and what I believe in.

Come on board, brother!

PM me with any questions,

Tom

[Comrade-Z]

In fact, I oppose all ideologies that seek to impose their supremecy over the rest of us. And, yes, that includes your somewhat clouded version of "communism".I could sorta see where you were coming from until this part. Your general tone before this was that, "Communism is a pointless dream, y'all need to get down to practical business, which sometimes requires compromises." This still seems to imply that communism would be an admirable goal, if only it were attainable, and that you're not going to hitch your wagon to something that seems improbable to you, and you're going to get on with other political business...but if a communist revolution, by chance, were to happen, you'd still be delighted. Pessimism is understandable. Heck, that's how I feel most of the time.

But then you make this absurd claim about communism (specifically redstar's ultra-leftist, libertarian version of communism) imposing some supremacy over you and others? :laugh: Oooh, yes, there's so much to fear about ultra-democratic organizations and struggling against religion and struggling against leader-worship and such (aren't those things beneficial in and of themselves, even if they don't lead to communist revolution?)....I'd understand if you just dismissed this as some admirable, but utopian dream. But to say that this would constitute a "supremacy" over you...c'mon, what do you have to lose? What do you have to fear? If a libertarian communist movement emerges, and the spectre of a libertarian communist revolution grows on the horizon, will you ignore it as hopelessly misguided and continue with your practical work? Or will you go out of your way to criticize it and warn against its alleged dangers? Because if this whole project of ours is really just hopeless utopian bullshit that wastes our time and won't get us anywhere, then you've got nothing to fear, and you don't have any reason to bother with criticizing communist revolution or discussing its alleged dangers.

This is why I don't buy the notion that the establishment has safely concluded that communism has passed into irrelevance. Because if it had, then they wouldn't have any reason to bother attacking it, as they continue to do. They'd just ignore it, or at the most brush it aside or mock it.

But the fact is that the class struggle is still here, even after the supposed fall of communism. This must be an uncomfortable fact. Owners still have an incentive to pay their workers less, and workers still have an incentive to earn more, and to take control over production and have control over their full product and determine their own livelihood so that they no longer have to go through this unending struggle in the first place. This class struggle, and these incentives persist. This is objective fact.

Now, will something new emerge out of this class struggle and these fundamental incentives, which have persisted ever since the beginning of capitalism? Let's assume not, for the sake of argument. Let's assume that, 500 years from now, capitalism still exists, and there is still this class struggle. Either the capitalist class will have learned much from the previous 700 years of class struggle, and the working class less, in which the capitalist class may have a decisive upper hand and be in a position to reduce the working class to the level of safe domestication (through media manipulation, dividing the working class against itself, think 1984), or the working class will have learned more from the previous 700 years of class struggle, in which case they will use that knowledge to their advantage and get the best possible deal out of the class struggle (what is that best possible deal, if it is not revolution and workplace democracy, in your opinion)? Or the capitalist and working classes will have learned exactly the same amount, in which case the class struggle will still be in the same state as it is now (I find this improbable). So, if you are set against self-management, are you prepared for increasing domestication?

[Robert]

Tom, I have to wonder whether you were really a die hard leftist. Further, and I direct this at all born again conservatives, you have to be a little suspicious of your own politics if you are able as an adult to go from one extreme to the other. Don't you wonder if you are now going to learn an even more fundamental truth that will tilt you toward the left?

[Bud Struggle]

Tom, I have to wonder whether you were really a die hard leftist. Further, and I direct this at all born again conservatives, you have to be a little suspicious of your own politics if you are able as an adult to go from one extreme to the other. Don't you wonder if you are now going to learn an even more fundamental truth that will tilt you toward the left?

Never diehard. I was brought up in a Stevenson Democratic family and I lived in the East Village in NYC when I was in grad school and volunteered with the Catholic Worker (http://www.catholicworker.com/) while I was there.

As a Catholic I believe in a preferential option for the poor--anyway, not to get to far into it I believed and still believe in fairness--but I am no nor ever have been a member of the Communist Party. I like my stuff too much.

I met William F. Buckley (in his books--not in person) after that and never looked back.

[RGacky3]

I don't think I've ever mett a revolutionary leftist who gave up based on principle, i.e. "wait a minute Capitalism IS fair, just and free the workers should'nt control their own production and lives." Its always been, ahhhhh forget it, I'm tired, this is boring, or so-and-so-other-leftists are dickheads, or the revolutoin is'nt going to come.

Being a Socialist is about principle, and principles have nothing to do with what is accomplished perse, how far away realizing it is, principles are (at the risk of sounding overly romantic) something higher than that, its what makes a human a human, knowing right from wrong and fighting for right, even if right is never actaulized.

If a revolutionary realizes he's going to loose, and just gives up bieng a revolutoinary, he misses the whole point, he never knew what being a revolutionary was in the first place. Even if you are not a revolutionary, knowing right from wrong should'nt change based on whos winning.

The thing is many things LSD has said is pretty much true, to a somewhat lesser degree, but that does'nt change anything, what people do the way people act does'nt change the fact that the system is unjust, and should be opposed.

[Robert]

Nobody should truly be a communist until they've experienced the horrors of capitalism. I have, and I like to think that most of the members of this community have.

What capitalistic horrors have you experienced? Unless, you're talking about having a child who died only because you didn't have the money, insurance or access to the free care provided by many eleemosynary institutions the U.S. (at least) boasts, then I don't know what you mean.

[ioncannon152]

I agree with LSD, communism will never work. If it had, we would be living under it by now.

Capitalist societies, although not perfect, are continuously evolving and constantly becoming better. For example, today, China is progressing so much faster than it would have under communism before. China has made the right move by embracing capitalism.

[Socialist Scum]

I agree with LSD, communism will never work. If it had, we would be living under it by now.

Capitalist societies, although not perfect, are continuously evolving and constantly becoming better. For example, today, China is progressing so much faster than it would have under communism before. China has made the right move by embracing capitalism.

Yes, China was awful under communism.

Wait-when was that again? :confused:

[#FF0000]

I agree with LSD, communism will never work. If it had, we would be living under it by now.

"Democracy will never work. If it had, we would be living under it by now" ~ Some dickhead aristocrat circa 1775

[danyboy27]

to lsd:
marvelous post, you have all my respect.

[brigadista]

LSD

this is only 7 years ago...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_9oCv396yU

[Bud Struggle]

One of the best threads ever on RevLeft--or at least since I've been here.

I've personally come a long way since then. :)

[#FF0000]

I've personally come a long way since then. :)

Are you an anarchist yet?

Then I beg to differ. :mellow:

EDIT: iceburn.gif

[trivas7]

Wow. Thanks for posting this, LSD. Most of this rings true to me as well; you've spoken eloquently.

W/ age sometimes does indeed come wisdom. Peace, comrade.

[GPDP]

It's like I'm really in 2008!

[trivas7]

Being a Socialist is about principle, and principles have nothing to do with what is accomplished perse, how far away realizing it is, principles are (at the risk of sounding overly romantic) something higher than that, its what makes a human a human, knowing right from wrong and fighting for right, even if right is never actaulized.

Ah, please excuse my stupidity, but what principle would that be? (But I'm really just trying to make you THINK, RGacky; [you sound as if you are saying that you can justify the morality of socialism.])

[trivas7]

You see a capitalist system that endures, I see a crumbling system.
Perhaps. What does that glean of socialism look like in the distance?

[synthesis]

Nice resurrection. I missed all of this, but I happen to agree with LSD's observations, if not his conclusions. There haven't been any big breakthroughs in the communist line of thinking for a long time, except for the ones that literally pushed us into a minority line of thinking - at least in the West.

As LSD has pointed out, capitalism has adapted, but that doesn't make communism irrelevant. It just means we must adapt to new conditions. Again, if we can take communism, give it a new name, and make it appear to be common sense to most people - which will take awhile - then we have a basis for revolution, if only because there will be people with stakes in the current system who will be violently opposed to turning society's "dirty work" into an extension of jury duty. You know, that stuff you hate doing but you do it anyways, because you know that it's the best thing we have to try and make the system fair.

[RGacky3]

Ah, please excuse my stupidity, but what principle would that be? (But I'm really just trying to make you THINK, RGacky; [you sound as if you are saying that you can justify the morality of socialism.])

The principle, that people should be free and equal and that authority must be compleatly justified to exist. The principle that we should be against any type of oppression, injustice and tyranny.

Trivas 7, this is getting old very fast.


One of the best threads ever on RevLeft--or at least since I've been here.

I've personally come a long way since then.

Its a thread about someone who never was a real revolutionary to begin with. Real revolutionaries stick by their principles.


As LSD has pointed out, capitalism has adapted,

If you look at the fundementals Capitalism has essencially stayed the same, its globalized and become much much bigger and much more technologically advanced.

[Dharma]

I agree with LSD, communism will never work. If it had, we would be living under it by now.

Capitalist societies, although not perfect, are continuously evolving and constantly becoming better. For example, today, China is progressing so much faster than it would have under communism before. China has made the right move by embracing capitalism.

Oh yeah I forgot about the socialist revolution in America.:rolleyes:

Capitalist societies are not constantly becoming better, they are becoming worse! China is progressing so much because their proletarian is producing mostly every product used wide spread in America. Guess who that profit benefits? The bourgeoisie! Open your eyes! I recommend you read the literature that initially formed your views and you once again realize that capitalism is failure and socialism is triumph. The Chinese's decision to turn to capitalism is not the right move, it is the greedy move.

[trivas7]

The principle, that people should be free and equal and that authority must be compleatly justified to exist. The principle that we should be against any type of oppression, injustice and tyranny.

Those aren't principles, sir, those are wish lists.

[trivas7]

The problem goes as far as the label itself: social democracy. The original idea of merging Marxism with the workers' movement (not just the "labour movement") got twisted into one of merging petit-bourgeois interpretations of Marxism with the broader popular "movement" (a reduced workers' movement in the form of a "labour movement", petit-bourgeois sympathizers, small and mid-level managers, etc.)
Yes, it's parsing terms such as these that is the real point of revolutionary left politics.

[Kassad]

I do like the cute little reactionaries who think that because something doesn't work during early attempts, it will always fail. Democracy was a total failure during the time where Monarchies ruled and all attempts at instilling them were put down, much in the same fashion that attempts at socialist states were. But, with that ideology, we should stop doing anything that doesn't work at first. Not to mention, there might have been, you know, militaristic colonialism and imperialism involved, but hey! It's just little things like that.

[RGacky3]

Those aren't principles, sir, those are wish lists.

No they are principles, because they are things that we believe people have a right to. Whether or not they happen does'nt change the fact that they are right.

like I sait


Trivas 7, this is getting old very fast.

If your not going to actually make any intelligent contributions then stop wasting everyones time.

[trivas7]

I am going to repost my reply to LSD here:

People work in a communist society because they can take what they need, their incentive to work is their actual ability to take whatever they need to consume.

Yes, this is the Party Line, but since communist society is a figment of your imagination, you really haven't a clue why people would go to work in a such a society.


Sorry LSD, I respect you a lot, but you've gotten in a ditch, though I understand your position. Going to a meeting like that has also made me rethink a lot of things I used to held to be true, but you know what? I always come to the same conclusions, because like or not, Marxism is based on cold hard logic. Materialism and logic dictate that capitalism cannot survive for a long period of time.
Then why doesn't everyone get this logic? If it's simply a matter of "2 + 2 = 4" I would think that everyone would have to at least acknowledge intellectually that Marxism is true. But that just isn't the case, is it?


You do realize that, while you were in that room arguing with those sectarian Trots, the world is slowly but surely reverting to barbarism, right?
Again, you've got the Party Line down -- what were these guys doing sloughing off by stopping for a beer?


You like historical materialism, don't you? Well, why don't you consider that ideology played a key part in the development of capitalism? Why don't you consider that without it there would have been no capitalist economic system today? Without the bourgeois ideologues there would be no bourgeoisie as it is today, with its fixed political, economic and moral theories.

The bourgeoisie also had to endure quite some failures before it finally came to power, and it did so when feudalism also fell to a similar dictum "capitalism or barbarism". The French people decided that they were going for capitalism instead of barbarism, and so capitalism arose and took power.
B/c historically this is bullshit and a point most lefties just don't get: capitalism didn't emerge historically in some smokey back room of co-conspirators. Today's "socialism or barbarism" isn't yesterday's "capitalism or barbarism". And no, capitalists as individuals don't cause "the misery and deaths of millions of people since 1918".


As for socialism actually working, the planned economy has proved its worth in the Soviet Union in practice. What do you prefer, capitalist Russia or centrally planned Soviet Union? Only a person with no knowledge of economics whatsoever would say that capitalist Russia is superior to the centrally planned Soviet Union.
Um, no; plenty of economists would say this.

[trivas7]

I do like the cute little reactionaries who think that because something doesn't work during early attempts, it will always fail.
Okay, let's settle for ONE success.

[Dean]

Okay, let's settle for ONE success.

The human being.

[brigadista]

to LSD to clarify- i posted that video to try to give you some hope.. dont be downhearted its tough we just have to keep on keeping on...

[trivas7]

The human being.
I realize that you would like to hypostasize socialism into The Cosmic Man, Dean; for most this is shear nonsense.

[Led Zeppelin]

Yes, this is the Party Line, but since communist society is a figment of your imagination, you really haven't a clue why people would go to work in a such a society.

Yes, that is the libertarian Party Line.

What it fails to take into account is that hypotheticals based on objective facts and on previous empirical data have some validity to them.

A very simple example; bourgeois-democracy did not just "come out of nowhere". Things like universal suffrage were written about and hypotheticals were made about them before they became reality.

It didn't just "happen".

If the people back then were like you they would have simply said; "lol but Rousseau, since your type of society is a figment of your imagination, you really haven't a clue why people would go to work in a such a society!"

Have you ever wondered why this "logic" has never had any significant following in either politics or philosophy? Because it's such a lame argument which history destroys to pieces, if you only understand and know something about it.

And last but not least; your "libertarian utopia" or whatever the hell you believe in is also a figment of your imagination, and what's more, it's not based on any logic applied to objective material conditions.

You really have no idea, not even in the broadest sense, how people would live like in such a society, yet you persist in believing in it.


Then why doesn't everyone get this logic? If it's simply a matter of "2 + 2 = 4" I would think that everyone would have to at least acknowledge intellectually that Marxism is true. But that just isn't the case, is it?

Why didn't everyone get the "logic" of capitalism in 1500? Why didn't everyone get the "logic" of bourgeois-democracy in 1600?

If it was simply a matter of "2+2=4", they should have gotten it by then, right?

See, when you believe history is a sequence of random events sown together, you start to ponder simple-minded questions like these.


Again, you've got the Party Line down -- what were these guys doing sloughing off by stopping for a beer?

I'm not sure what this means, were you trying to be witty and/or funny?

Because it has failed horribly.


B/c historically this is bullshit and a point most lefties just don't get: capitalism didn't emerge historically in some smokey back room of co-conspirators. Today's "socialism or barbarism" isn't yesterday's "capitalism or barbarism". And no, capitalists as individuals don't cause "the misery and deaths of millions of people since 1918".

Read up on the French revolution and some other Bourgeois revolutions, clearly you have no idea how they unfolded and came to power. The struggle against feudalism was not one which "evolved naturally", because history doesn't work like that. And it was also not one of "Great Men" who changed society as they saw fit because "it had to be done".

That is how school-children are taught history, not how serious people should understand it.

And the capitalist class - which is made up of individuals as anyone who can count to 5 knows - have indeed been responsible for the misery and deaths of millions of people since 1918.

Just a few examples; World War 2, the Holocaust, Iraq war, Afghanistan war, Vietnam war. I can go on but anyone who knows some history understand already so there is no point to further dwell on this.


Um, no; plenty of economists would say this.

Which proves my point.

"Plenty of economists" aren't Marxists.

I'd rather look at the standard of living in the pre-capitalist era, and compare it to the post-capitalist era, to see which economic system was superior. That is how people who want to analyze such things honestly would do.

[trivas7]

I'd rather look at the standard of living in the pre-capitalist era, and compare it to the post-capitalist era, to see which economic system was superior. That is how people who want to analyze such things honestly would do.
But there is no post-socialist era to compare capitalism to; until there is your arguments boil down to: Marx was right, you're wrong. Christian fundamentalists argue thus.

[ZeroNowhere]

And yet, when it comes right down to it, the real "evil" of American global capitalism is that it works. If it didn't, we wouldn't all be sitting here today. Oh, it doesn't work for everyone, and it sucks balls for 90% of the world, but capitalism endures.
'Endures' and 'works' have different meanings.


'Cause like it or not folks, the Soviet Union was the grand experiment. And so was China and Vietnam and Cuba and the dozen or so other countries where Marxist parties have come to power and tried to implement their "transition" to "communism".
Assertion. Hell, China and Vietnam and Cuba and the dozen or so other countries were just modelling themselves after the Soviet Union, and are thus inapplicable. As for the USSR, a bourgeois revolution wrapped in red flags is not really the 'grand experiment'.


No, by then, "communism", like "trotskyism" and "leninism" and "anarchism" and all the other juvenile delusions of the radical left will have been long abandoned. Junked as the unworkable utopias they always were.
Assertion.


'Cause, come on, none of us really ever had that answer. You know the one, the answer to that newbie poster who naively wanders into Theory and asks so...why will people work if there's no money?
LTVs.


We brush them off and move their post to Learning where they can be deluged with mountains of drivel and theory, but we never actually sit down and ponder the question because, I suspect, we all know somewhere in the back of our minds that there is no answer.
No, we most certainly do not.


That, in the end, production does require incentives! People do not go to work for the joy of it. People do not like to work.
Fair enough.


Once the ideas have faded a bit, people sit down and wonder why again am I going to the factory every day? Which is why, of course, the Soviets paid their workers wages. I know, I know, it was "socialism", not "communism", but the fact remains, it was wage-labour, it was money.
No, it wasn't socialism, and not communism, which is a synonym, it was state capitalism. Capitalism = Wages. Woah.


All of which tells me that, when it comes down to it, we probably won't see a moneyless society until we finaly divorce production from labour. Once the technology develops to the point that everything can be automated and copmuterized, then classes become irrelevent and then we have "communism" (of one sort or another).
Baseless assertion. Reminds me of somebody, though.


That sure ain't Marxist, but it's the only materialist conclusion I can come to.
Cool.


The older I get, the more I realize I don't know. I don't need a political label, I just know what makes sense to me and what doesn't. When I take that moronic "political compass" test, I still come out -10, -10. But y'all would probably call be a "reformist", whatever, I don't care anymore.
Well, yes, that wouldn't be possible to get without being a reformist (or lying).


This isn't me leaving the board, but I'm not sure if you'll still want me around. My views haven't really changed, I'm just being honest with myself: in the forseeable future, capitalism isn't going anywhere. We should do our best to minimize it's effects, and unions remain the greatest weapon in that fight, but the idea of a "proletarian revolution" is outlandish and anachronistic.
Is it, now? Cool.


I agree with LSD, communism will never work. If it had, we would be living under it by now.
Baseless. Though really, I bet that if the monarchists had used such powerful arguments, they would never have been overthrown/relegated to a celebrity rather than ruler.


Capitalist societies, although not perfect, are continuously evolving and constantly becoming better. For example, today, China is progressing so much faster than it would have under communism before. China has made the right move by embracing capitalism.
Communism before? What communism?

[trivas7]

Communism before? What communism?
Indeed. Why not add "Communism after? What communism?"?

[Pogue]

Indeed. Why not add "Communism after? What communism?"?

Sorry but whats your point?

[Led Zeppelin]

But there is no post-socialist era to compare capitalism to;

Eh, clearly what I said was referring to the former USSR.


until there is your arguments boil down to: Marx was right, you're wrong. Christian fundamentalists argue thus

Conversation between a member of the revolutionary bourgeoisie and a member of the conservative feudalist aristocracy in France, anno 1700:

Feudalist: Until there is any example of this "democracy" and "Liberty, equality, fraternity" nonsense your argument boils down to: Rousseau was right, you're wrong. Christian fundamentalists argue thus!

Bourgeois revolutionary: ....What the fuck?

89 years later; The French revolution.

That is what a person who knows something about history will think of.

I mean what the hell is that even supposed to mean? You can't believe in something before it has been implemented, because only then can you know that it works? If you have any good ideas to change anything, give up on it right now because you are using the same logic as Christian fundamentalists! I mean, duh, you have no idea that your idea will work, so you're only basing it on faith! Ideas that have been implemented were done so randomly. No one conceived them as ideas beforehand, they were implemented before first being ideas. After all, if they considered it a good idea before implementing it, they were only basing it on faith, and they were being like....Christian Fundamentalists!

Doh.

I think you're just trolling for the hell of it now. No person can seriously use arguments like these and think they're right at the same time, unless they're using double-think.

[Yazman]

I just want to add that I think it's funny as hell how capitalists seem to think that their favoured system of economics was just magically accepted by academia in the 18th century! That it just magically came into being without long struggles! Without there being systematic bias towards feudal monarchy that crushed revolutions for more than 150 years!

[trivas7]

Conversation between a member of the revolutionary bourgeoisie and a member of the conservative feudalist aristocracy in France, anno 1700:

Feudalist: Until there is any example of this "democracy" and "Liberty, equality, fraternity" nonsense your argument boils down to: Rousseau was right, you're wrong. Christian fundamentalists argue thus!

Bourgeois revolutionary: ....What the fuck?

89 years later; The French revolution.

That is what a person who knows something about history will think of.


You confuse a knowledge of history w/ that ahistorical form of idealism known as Marxism.

[Led Zeppelin]

You confuse a knowledge of history w/ that ahistorical form of idealism known as Marxism.

Ok, now I'm 100% sure that you're trolling for the hell of it.

Please don't waste my time in the future. I thought you were actually being serious.

[JimmyJazz]

I didn't want to be the 1000th person to add their snarky reply to the OP, but I have to:


<snip>

Because no party currently exists in the U.S. or England that is capable of serving as the "vanguard" (itself a controversial concept among socialists), socialism as an economic-political philosophy is dead?

Can you be serious? There have to be a million better reasons for rejecting socialism, and not even any of them are good enough.

[Sean]

I'm really glad this thread is here and someone else posted this before me. Much respect to the original poster for braving it. It might not be good for morale, but it needs said.

People that stop too long to think about it, or, god forbid actually act on it, end up losing out in life, and are damned to watch those who just accept and embrace the way things are move along and "succeed". As far as I can tell, being in my mid 20s, the older you get, the less radical you get in general.

I've felt my own convictions wane as I get older and despite wanting a life on the road, I still find myself trying to cling on to the familiar, but I was startled at my own father who, at 65, questioned the point of his own involvement in the struggle to the left, despite spending a long time in jail because of them. He did not, and does not, however renounce his beliefs, but he felt that his life was spent in vain, after seeing the meager results.

I understand that it seems pointless and its difficult to get people serious about it that aren't already diehards. And generally people who are lefties with any theory behind them are largely ineffectual, myself included. But its the disaffected that will feel the change, not the ones that actually think about it. After it happens a few heroes will be made of guys that did something violent, but the architects will be forgotten because anti authoritarianism seems to fly in the face of collective memory. They'll remember those that order them, those that did something opposite, but never those that orchestrated the whole thing by simply explaining that it doesn't have to be this way.

A lot of people simply don't have any kind of community history in the left, and its those people that really need to get together to affirm their own convictions. In my short time of real activity on this site I've found friends, that I'll hopefully be working closely with outside of the internet. We're all out there, and not that far away from eachother, despite petty squabbling about the details of the type of revolution. So stick with it if you feel like you're the only one!

As an atheist, I can live with that, and I think that mine will be a life well spent and one I would repeat over and over the same way.

[trivas7]

We are the movement that has captured the hearts and minds of millions of people in basically every country in the world for the last 150 years.
No longer. Socialism now has a track record people despise.

[trivas7]

There are a couple of million proper bourgeoisie who could be physically liquidated. :)

No social upheaval has succeeded without terror.

As for "irrelevancy," you have no idea about the increasing relative immiseration of the working class. BTW, congrats on affiliating yourself with an organization that includes thugs like Mubarak.
Osama Bin Laden could have written this very post.

[danyboy27]

Osama Bin Laden could have written this very post.

i agree with you that was pretty disturbing.

but somehow, he right, i mean, we could have a succesfull revolution, put all counter revolutionary in camps, if there is too much of them, we will execute them by thousand.

sound achievable, its not like of nobody did something like that without a certain succes in the past.

[trivas7]

i agree with you that was pretty disturbing.

but somehow, he right, i mean, we could have a succesfull revolution, put all counter revolutionary in camps, if there is too much of them, we will execute them by thousand.

sound achievable, its not like of nobody did something like that without a certain succes in the past.
What are you arguing? That Stalin's gulags is the way to go?

[Led Zeppelin]

What are you arguing? That Stalin's gulags is the way to go?

You prefer dropping bombs on brown people and gas chambers, right?

[danyboy27]

What are you arguing? That Stalin's gulags is the way to go?


i was making a parallel with nazi germany.

if you think that i would advocat such barbaric method you dont know me well enough.

[trivas7]

You prefer dropping bombs on brown people and gas chambers, right?
As a brown person myself, um -- no.

[Led Zeppelin]

As a brown person myself, um, no.

Oh, ok, as long as it's other brown people then... or maybe people who are a bit darker.

[danyboy27]

Oh, ok, as long as it's other brown people then... or maybe people who are a bit darker.


being against extremination of million of capitalist dont mean we advocate the holocaust or the intentional killing of civilian.

[Led Zeppelin]

being against extremination of million of capitalist dont mean we advocate the holocaust or the intentional killing of civilian.

I was not referring to that.

I was referring to this:


And no, capitalists as individuals don't cause "the misery and deaths of millions of people since 1918".
Link (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1355811&postcount=221)

[danyboy27]

I was not referring to that.

I was referring to this:


Link (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1355811&postcount=221)

well, he said capitalist has individuals, from my undnerstanding , it was mostly caused by groups and institution, the so called self eating monsters.

[Led Zeppelin]

well, he said capitalist has individuals, from my undnerstanding , it was mostly caused by groups and institution, the so called self eating monsters.

Capitalists as individuals make up the capitalist class, and they are the ruling class who dominate those groups and institutions, i.e., he supports what I said he supports.

[RGacky3]

You prefer dropping bombs on brown people and gas chambers, right?

I don't think the ruling classes care waht color the people they drop bombs on are. They'll drop bombs on anyone, no matter what color, that gets out of line.

[redSHARP]

i always look at it this way; i'm getting shitted on so i am going to fight back. so fuck them! i am going to try and have a better life were i am not be exploited.