A single teaspoon of sugar is more important than Hoxha

[Invader Zim]

It seems that on this board we have a bizarre obsession with Modern European history. I would argue that this obsession can be narrowed further to modern Russian history, perhaps even to modern Russian 'heroes' and 'anti-heroes' depending on your politics. For leftists it is a staggeringly anti-leftist obsession with the impact of individuals. Leftwing history is based around structuralism and directly contradicts 'great man' history. Yet you wouldn't know that from the example here; the number of threads on Trotsky, Stalin, Hoxha, Lenin, or some other 'key' individual, probably make up over half the threads on this forum.

Yet I would argue that the simple act of putting sugar into a hot beverage, was of far greater historical significance than the actions of any one individual.

Sugar was one of, if not the biggest business of the 18th century. Millions of tons were exported from the 'New World' to the 'Old World'. Sugar requires plantations, and in the eighteenth century plantations required slaves. Thus you soon find a link between the sugar trade and the slave trade. What did those who sold sugar and demanded slaves also want? They wanted various mundane commodities ranging from coal, to metals, to clothes, to pots and pans, etc. These were produced in the Old World and transported to the new. In addition, the slavers, in order to actually purchase slaves required to provide various goods, namely weapons, to African leaders. The impact of this was to create a growth of industry in the old world, which made the Old World more prosperous. As the economies grew people, of all walks of life became more prosperous and could afford luxuries such as sugar and coffee, further increasing demand from the new world and thus further increasing the need for industry in the old.

The increase in demand for sugar led to a greater rate of sugar production which brought down its cost and made it still more widely available. As you may have guessed this process becomes self perpetuating until sugar becomes an everyday house hold commodity. It also leads to a greater degree of prosperity allowing the same trend to occur with tobacco, cocoa, etc; the consumer revolution, all of which required slave labour to produce, and the cycle expands. And thus you have the birth of the industrial revolution and the rise of modern industrial capitalism, because everyday people began to put sugar in their tea and coffee. Of course we all know about the industrial revolution, and how that shaped modern society.

So the act of putting sugar in a cup of tea, or rather the mundane everyday actions of working people, is far more historically important than Hoxha. Of course this is a rather quick and crude model I have drawn and can easily be dismantled, but I think it demonstrates the point. So do we really need all these threads on him, or those like him? Can we not behave like leftists and leave this obsession with individuals behind?

[Comrade Krell]

I see your post of nothing but infantile trolling coming from a naive ultraleftist. Marxist-Leninists, unlike the other dogmatics such as yourself, treat M-L as a living breathing science which was advanced by comrades Stalin and Hoxha.

[Pawn Power]

I completely agree with your critique of romantic history forusing on particular individuals

I also agree that sugar is profoundly important. A great book on the subject, from a more anthropological view, is Sidney Mintz's Sweetness and Power: The Place of Sugar in Modern History

[Hyacinth]

:thumbup:
Excellent post.

I'm reminded of a quote:

"The tradition of all the dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brain of the living, and when they seem to be engaged in revolutionizing themselves and things, in creating something entirely new, precisely in such epochs of revolutionary crisis they anxiously conjure up the spirits of the past to their service and borrow from them names, battle slogans and costumes in order to present the new scene of world history in this time-honored disguise and borrowed language. Thus Luther donned the mask of the Apostle Paul, the revolution of 1789 to 1814 draped itself alternately as the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire, and the revolution of 1848 knew nothing better than to parody, in turn, 1789 and the tradition of 1793 to 1795....The social revolution of the nineteenth century cannot draw its poetry from the past, but only from the future. It cannot begin with itself before it has stripped off all superstition in regard to the past....In order to arrive at its content, the revolution of the nineteenth century must let the dead bury their dead. There the phrase went beyond the content, here the content goes beyond the phrase."—Karl Marx

[Die Neue Zeit]

For a moment, I thought you were going to go into a Mary Poppins tangent. ;)

[Zurdito]

Well I don't disagree with the point you were trying to make but you unintentionally betrayed something else in that OP I think: it looks like some kind of chaos theory.

It's not the "mundane" acts of everyday people that make history progress, it's the collective advancement of human society based on conscious labour and based on our advancement as societies due to building on the productive progress and knowledge accumulated by previous generations. Your "mundane" theory suggests, indirectly, that it will be "mundane", "unconscious" and "random" events that will continue to drive history, rather than conscious organised class struggle. This kind of ties in with your rejection of the improtance of individuals - whilst I compeltely agree with opposing personality cults, your particular example of "sugar" being more improtant than "Hoxha" suggests a de-emphasis of *conscious* human agency in directly planning and shaping our future, and an overemphasis of randomness and impossible to predict side effects, which is a very post-modern obsession actually.

I know this is not the point you were trying to make, but in this post-modern age there is a real tendency to view history as something random, as if, you know, what if people hadn't wanted sugar, then, none of this would have happened, right? or it would have been completely different? I don't buy that. it reminds me of that whole "Butterfly Effect" line, it's a really sterilised way of looking at a story as epic as the advancement of human history, to single out particular "peculiarities" like sugar, and then raise them above the great transcendent and dialectical advancement of the human race over time, based on the conscious self-organisation of societies as a whole, and not on random peculiarities which could just as easily have swung the other way.

ummm I hope that made some sense. :s

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

We believe in politics of the people, but here the Stalinists etc spend their time making threads on the greatness of their respective demogouge,

History is made by actions of the masses, not of an elite few.

mmm toast

[Comrade Krell]

We believe in politics of the people, but here the Stalinists etc spend their time making threads on the greatness of their respective demogouge,

History is made by actions of the masses, not of an elite few.

mmm toast
'Stalinist' is a mythical bogeyman created by the Trots and other reactionaries out of an opportunistic tendency to conform to the bourgeois line of the 'evil' of Stalin. When it comes to capitalism these average leftists are correct in most of their critiques, but when it comes to Stalin they are indistinguishable from any rapid anti-communist, parroting lines unrecognizable from something Hitler or McCarthy could have written.

These people you refer to, the 'Stalinists', and I would count myself among them, do not in the least think of Stalin as a 'great man of history'. In actual fact recently I was having quite the debate with a Russian who thinks of Stalin in that way, and my group fervently opposed him.

To me and Marxist-Leninists, Stalin was nothing but a Marxist revolutionary, I view him in his capacity as advancing the foundations of Leninism, revolutionary strategy and the organizational formation of the ruling working class; as relating to the Party as it's avant-garde. Stalin advanced the line of Marxist-Leninist theory also in relation to the aggravation of the class struggle under socialism and rapid industrialization as to empower the working class through increasing their numbers and thus economic power.

It strikes me as both vulgar and opportunistic that so many of my 'comrades' of this side of the left will openly side with the bourgeois and become a mouthpiece for imperialism when the issue concerns the history as relating to comrade Stalin. The ultraleftist populist myth of Stalin is both untrue and highly reactionary.

[Invader Zim]

I see your post of nothing but infantile trolling coming from a naive ultraleftist. Marxist-Leninists, unlike the other dogmatics such as yourself, treat M-L as a living breathing science which was advanced by comrades Stalin and Hoxha.

Don't lie to me, you didn't even read my post; if you had you would have made such a moronic post which so completely misses the point.

But prove me wrong, and try to critique my thesis that structuralist theories pretty much invariably hold greater weight than 'great man' theories.


It's not the "mundane" acts of everyday people that make history progress, it's the collective advancement of human society based on conscious labour and based on our advancement as societies due to building on the productive progress and knowledge accumulated by previous generations.

I didn't pass comment on why sugar became popular; rather the implications of what occured because it became popular. Your idea that putting sugar in tea or coffee, or mundane acts, are mutally exclusive with historical materialism is false. How do you know that an important motivating factor for putting sugar in tea is not class based? I didn't pass judgement either way; indeed I would be inclined to suggest that 'class' struggle (class not really being the word for this period, but never mind) played a very big part in this process; sugar after all being a luxury and a symbol of 'class', one which the lower orders, in particular the 'bourgeiosie' (another poor term for this period) wiched to emulate.

You have been provided 2+2 and reached 5.


what if people hadn't wanted sugar, then, none of this would have happened, right?Wrong, this kind of counterfactural history is bullshit. Deal in what happened, not what could have or would have happened had 'x' factor not occured. The fact is that sugar did become popular, a result of class struggle or not, and did change the way the world is today; leave the 'what wuld have happened' alternative history to novelists.

[Bilan]

'Stalinist' is a mythical bogeyman created by the Trots and other reactionaries out of an opportunistic tendency to conform to the bourgeois line of the 'evil' of Stalin.

There's more cliches in that sentence than in a Charlie brown comic. Jesus christ.
Stalinist is a derogatory term used against socialists who uphold the principles and actions of Stalin, and often, other authoritarian tendencies of socialism.



When it comes to capitalism these average leftists are correct in most of their critiques, but when it comes to Stalin they are indistinguishable from any rapid anti-communist, parroting lines unrecognizable from something Hitler or McCarthy could have written.

Nonsense. First of all, those extreme examples make your point just silly, because Hitler obviously had qualms with Stalin over his race, of which your average bourgeois critic wouldn't even bring into the picture, and McCarthy was an ultra-right wing capitalist, of which even bourgeois historians consider his claims and activities as hysteria.

You fail to actually read critiques of stalin from anti-capitalist positions, evidently, because they have nothing alike with that of 'bourgeois' critics.




These people you refer to, the 'Stalinists', and I would count myself among them, do not in the least think of Stalin as a 'great man of history'. In actual fact recently I was having quite the debate with a Russian who thinks of Stalin in that way, and my group fervently opposed him.

:lol:



To me and Marxist-Leninists, Stalin was nothing but a Marxist revolutionary, I view him in his capacity as advancing the foundations of Leninism, revolutionary strategy and the organizational formation of the ruling working class; as relating to the Party as it's avant-garde.

Then you fail to see what actually occured under Stalin's rule in Russia.
It correct he brought forward industrialism in the USSR, and for that, he can be admired, but his activities as a brutal dictator hardly 'advance' theory, and his critiques of left wing communism and anarchism are just silly (as usual).



Stalin advanced the line of Marxist-Leninist theory also in relation to the aggravation of the class struggle under socialism and rapid industrialization as to empower the working class through increasing their numbers and thus economic power.

...except that's not what occurred. The working class was as weak in Russia as anywhere else in the world.



It strikes me as both vulgar and opportunistic that so many of my 'comrades' of this side of the left will openly side with the bourgeois and become a mouthpiece for imperialism when the issue concerns the history as relating to comrade Stalin. The ultraleftist populist myth of Stalin is both untrue and highly reactionary.

Oh bullshit, they don't side with them, or you. You're both full of shit. We side with neither one of you.

[ManyAntsDefeatSpiders]

What a nice fresh breath of historical materialism rather than the typical 'Great Leaders' and 'Great Dates' method of history often taught or encouraged. :)

[Awful Reality]

The act of putting sugar in a cup of tea led to increased demands for sugar, which, like the tea itself, led to imperialism. These figures analyzed imperialism and thus became just as important.

[Invader Zim]

These figures analyzed imperialism and thus became just as important.

This is a fundermentally anti-leftwing and direct contradiction of the fundermental tenets of historical materialism. Individuals are not as important as structures.

[Awful Reality]

This is a fundermentally anti-leftwing and direct contradiction of the fundermental tenets of historical materialism. Individuals are not as important as structures.

Individuals represent structures. Their historical importance arises from the contradiction between the establishment of the historic structure and historical, objective, material progress.

[Comrade Krell]

This is a fundermentally anti-leftwing and direct contradiction of the fundermental tenets of historical materialism. Individuals are not as important as structures.
Yes but you obviously fail to see that while structures in society influence and indeed make certain developments inevitable, it is still the actions of the individuals who make up society, and such groups themselves, who act upon the real conditions induced by such historical material conditions.

I think you need to place normative relations within that material context. In an overall way material relations make proletarian revolution inevitable(a word I shy away from), but that doesn't excuse action from the workers, the regular men who make this history, in short the light bulb doesn't turn itself, the light bulb may create the material conditions which make it all but inevitable that a group of men will turn it, but history itself doesn't do anything. For example, although the bourgeois overthrew feudalism, that doesn't make it a monolithic event, both sides has ideas and individuals in that class struggle who created the events we call history today. Marxism is not the theory that material relations create change, it's the theory that material relations form the actions that men, men themselves who decide the course of history.

The Communists base themselves on rich historical experience which teaches that obsolete classes do not voluntarily abandon the stage of history. Recall the history of England in the seventeenth century. Did not many say that the old social system had decayed? But did it not, nevertheless, require a Cromwell to crush it by force?

[Invader Zim]

Individuals represent structures.

No, they don't. Indivuduals are part of structures. Their conciousness is determined by their place within these structures.


it is still the actions of the individuals who make up society, and such groups themselves, who act upon the real conditions induced by such historical material conditions.

Indeed it is, but their actions and conciousness is dictated by their material conditions. They play a function within the wider social structure. To quote Marx: -

"In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production. The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness."

Karl Marx, Preface: A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, (1859).


But did it not, nevertheless, require a Cromwell to crush it by force?

Leftists argue that Cromwell played a functional role, arguing that his actions were part of a much wider structure, and that the structure dictates the function. In other words, individuals provide functional roles within structures.

[manic expression]

Yes, I generally agree with the original point. You could make the same case for numerous different examples. Also: with the rise of the sugar plantations came new perceptions of race which permeated throughout the western world (remember the little debate we had on that? I thought you'd appreciate that fact).

However, we can't JUST see history as developments in the sugar or gold trade; history is also made by men. The overall stage is set by economics, but we still have a role to play, and so it is a mistake to lose sight of the human aspect of history. As Marx said:

Men make their own history, but not as they like it.

[apathy maybe]

What a nice fresh breath of historical materialism rather than the typical 'Great Leaders' and 'Great Dates' method of history often taught or encouraged. :)

This. Thanks Invader Zim for providing a useful counter-example to the "great men" crap.

It continually surprises me how "Marxists" uphold Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky et al. as great leaders.

Heck, if Marxism is correct about class struggle and the collapse or transformation of capitalism, then we didn't even need Marx to point that out. It will happen regardless.

[Vanguard1917]

Heck, if Marxism is correct about class struggle and the collapse or transformation of capitalism, then we didn't even need Marx to point that out. It will happen regardless.


Marxism doesn't believe that socialist revolution is some kind of spontaneous and automatic outcome of classes struggling. The decisive factor is the class consciousness of the working class. Socialist revolution is ultimately the result of the conscious actions of thinking men and women - as opposed to being a product of mysterious forces outside of human beings.

[Led Zeppelin]

It continually surprises me how "Marxists" uphold Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky et al. as great leaders.

You don't understand Marxism, and I believe you misunderstood IZ's point as well.

"Great men or women" don't create the objective material conditions for a revolution situation, but they certainly do play a part in the process.


Two weeks prior to our bloodless victory in Petrograd – and we could have gained it even two weeks earlier – experienced party politicians saw arrayed against us the military cadets, anxious and able to fight, the shock troops, the Cossacks, a substantial part of the garrison, the artillery, in fan-like formation, and the troops arriving from the front. But in reality all this came to nothing: in round figures, zero. Now, let us imagine for a moment that the opponents of the insurrection had carried the day in our party and in the Central Committee. The part that leadership plays in a civil war is all too clear: in such a case the revolution would have been doomed beforehand – unless Lenin had appealed to the party against the Central Committee, which he was preparing to do, and in which he would undoubtedly have been successful. But, under similar conditions, not every party will have its Lenin ...

When Trotsky says "not every party will have its Lenin" he does not mean the person Lenin, he meant the policies and positions which the person Lenin embodied.

Obviously Lenin would have had no impact at all was it not for the objective material conditions which gave his party strength numerically and in terms of consciousness, obviously Lenin would himself had no knowledge of Marxism or any politics at all for that matter if he was not drawn into that movement by other revolutionary movements such as the Narodniki, which in turn were also affected by material conditions etc. etc.

The question is however, had Lenin died by some accident in 1905, would it have affected the outcome of October? The person most closely involved in October, Trotsky, says that it would have, and history seems to hint at it as well given Lenin's importance in changing the party's mind on the question of the revolution.

But then again, if Lenin had died, he would not have had the position he did have while he was alive, and therefore someone else might have taken it. Bukharin perhaps? Maybe Kamenev or Zinoviev would have been more revolutionary? Who knows?

In the end it all comes down to meaningless speculation, so we come to the conclusion that "great men and women" play a role but are completely and entirely bound by, and a product of, material conditions.

This is the Marxist method.

Plekhanov explains this more thoroughly in his essay On the Role of the Individual in History (http://www.marxists.org/archive/plekhanov/1898/xx/individual.html)

[The Author]

Can we not behave like leftists and leave this obsession with individuals behind?

I agree. I would like to see more discussions on potential topics such as:

1- Was there trade between the Old and the New World before Columbus?
2- When did bronze production really come into being? Can we really say there was a definite period as the "Bronze Age"?
3- What sort of political superstructure existed in the Indus Valley Civilization?

These are just a sample that come to my mind. And there are plenty of other potential historical topics as well that we could be talking about.

As opposed to "Great Leader" style comments such as these:


The question is however, had Lenin died by some accident in 1905, would it have affected the outcome of October? The person most closely involved in October, Trotsky, says that it would have, and history seems to hint at it as well given Lenin's importance in changing the party's mind on the question of the revolution.And "Anti-Christ" style comments such as these:


Then you fail to see what actually occured under Stalin's rule in Russia.Both are equally bogus. They focus too much on the involvement of the individual in history and are completely ignorant of the material basis of society, and the political and cultural superstructural institutions of society.

Yes, it is high time for us to leave this obsession with individuals behind.

[Comrade Rage]

We believe in politics of the people, but here the Stalinists etc spend their time making threads on the greatness of their respective demogougeWhat are you talking about? It's usually us defending people like Comrade Stalin in threads dedicated to trashing the USSR while he was Gen. Sec. The inane crap about how everything that happened in the USSR 1924-1953 being evil, which comes straight out of individual obsession, is what we're fighting against.


Yes, it is high time for us to leave this obsession with individuals behind.
Preaching to the choir with me. I like to focus more on theories, rather than on life stories/personalities. It's up to revolutionaries today to shed this image of 'simply imitating Lenin'. It's not that we can't appreciate his theories and uphold them, we just shouldn't kindle some kind of personality club.

[Ismail]

Had Hoxha been overthrown and a pro-Soviet puppet installed in, say, 1957, then an orthodox Marxist-Leninist take on anti-revisionism (as opposed to the Maoist take) would take longer and only appear in the 1980's or 90's, as opposed to the 50's. Albania however was instrumental in bringing China into the UN and many claimed Albania was China's mouthpiece there until the 70's.

I believe that a classless society (not including some sort of event like a meteor hitting the planet and destroying it) is inevitable. But I'm pretty sure that if Trotsky were shot in the head in 1915 during a robbery or whatever that Trotskyism would be composed of a few obscure Mensheviks who take turns condemning Lenin and we wouldn't see a 'power struggle' in the USSR between Stalin and a Trot.

In the former example we would of seen an anti-revisionist movement appear anyway from an orthodox perspective, except it'd probably take longer. In the latter though we see that a major branch of Communism could of not even existed. Am I incorrect in this? Because I can't see how Trotskyism would of existed today had Trotsky died before its adherents existed. (Talking about ideology of course, not the names)

This could then turn into a debate on the correct path winning and others being secondary and only playing a temporary role, ergo Trotskyism will vanish once socialism is laid out across the world and the transition to Communism begins. (Trotskyists can argue, of course, that 'Stalinism' will be the one to go) A good example of these are the various 19th century socialist movements in Germany, Britain, etc that fought against Marxism. Although in this case there would of been socialist anti-Marxist movements anyway no matter what banner they go under, they were incorrect and thus declined until they ceased existence. So you could in fact argue there would of been another Trotsky to provide a bourgeois-friendly view of the USSR (or another Stalin who 'destroys socialism' or whatever) to begin with via dialectics. (The whole contradiction thing)

Then again, another Trotsky would of not been as well known as Trotsky himself and his or her influence could easily be lesser and thus have a huge impact. It goes on and on. The way I see it, this works very well when it's abstracted into movements (e.g. French Revolutionaries vs. Monarchists or Bolsheviks vs. Mensheviks) and manageable when it comes to inanimate objects (sugar, bread, etc.) but starts to get complex when it comes to actual human beings due to the complexity of human beings themselves.

[Awful Reality]

I'm pretty sure that if Trotsky were shot in the head in 1915 during a robbery or whatever that Trotskyism would be composed of a few obscure Mensheviks who take turns condemning Lenin and we wouldn't see a 'power struggle' in the USSR between Stalin and a Trot.

Yes, but Trotsky wasn't killed in 1915. And only later, towards the mid-to-late 1920's (1925-1928), did Trotskyism really develop into an actual ideology. Before then it constituted orthodox, regular Bolshevism. And also, Trotsky also often renounced Menshevism. His Menshevik days, though Stalinists love to talk about them, didn't really matter in the actual Revolution, Civil War, etc.

Actually, had Trotsky been shot in 1915 in a robbery or whatever, Stalin never would have had a chance to take power. The civil war would have been lost and the USSR never existed.

[Ismail]

Before then it constituted orthodox, regular Bolshevism.Even though Trotsky at that point condemned Bolsheviks.


His Menshevik days, though Stalinists love to talk about them, didn't really matter in the actual Revolution, Civil War, etc.Actually they did considering that he joined the Bolsheviks in July 1917.


The civil war would have been lost and the USSR never existed.Yes, Trotsky clearly signified whether the USSR would survive or die. He was the sole force of the USSR's existence. :rolleyes:

We don't think Hoxha would of had any bearing on the Albanian resistance's victory in WWII. It was a popular movement, as was the Bolshevik revolution.

[ManyAntsDefeatSpiders]

Actually, had Trotsky been shot in 1915 in a robbery or whatever, Stalin never would have had a chance to take power. The civil war would have been lost and the USSR never existed. If Madame Curie had not happened to leave a photographic plate in a drawer with a chunk of pitchblende, the world today would not know about radium.

[Awful Reality]

Yes, Trotsky clearly signified whether the USSR would survive or die. He was the sole force of the USSR's existence. :rolleyes:
This is like saying "Eisenhower had no effect on the Western Front of WWII." The fact is that the Civil War would not have been won without Trotsky.


If Madame Curie had not happened to leave a photographic plate in a drawer with a chunk of pitchblende, the world today would not know about radium.
Possible. And, that has nothing to do with it. For one, because radium will always exist. But a revolution is ephemeral. Radium, due to its nature, is always providing people with new opportunities to be discovered. A revolution either fails or triumphs, and then it's over.

[ManyAntsDefeatSpiders]

Maybe I am the only one without a Raccoon coat. :(

[Ismail]

This is like saying "Eisenhower had no effect on the Western Front of WWII." The fact is that the Civil War would not have been won without Trotsky.Eisenhower had an effect, but Germany would of lost anyway. Fascism gives rise to a whole lot of contradictions, and the proletariat remains the decisive force in a conflict. It may of took longer for the anarchists and such to go away, but that doesn't mean that Trotsky was imbued with amazing knowledge about how to fight.

[razboz]

it amuses me no end how both Ismail and Awful reality fail to get the point of the thread...

incidentally your idea's quite elegant, Zim. however a few of those that mentioned the importance of the individual also have an important point.

the structure of a system and the mechanisms that move the agents within the system are what make history occur. however the importance of individuals as catalysts cannot be denied. Individuals compose the system, and as such have power over and within the system. however the notion that an indivudal was essential is as absurd as it is overused. eventually a system will produce the correct agent for the correct circumstance. stalin, lenin, trotsky and the gang (for want of a less clichéd example) were all products of a system and appeared at the correct time and at the correct place. Without going to much into speculative history, the system being what it was would almost certainly have produced a set of indivudals who would take the system to whatevcer conclusion it needed. the individual skills and assets of the specific people are not inthemselves what allowed the individuals to shape history, but rather the opportunity that the system "created" for them. what's more, the indivduals that appear to have changed history (hitler, stalin, mao, ho chi minh, raegan etc etc) are often not those who really forged the acts, but rather convenient figureheads. Hitler, for example, while vitally important in the development and ultimate demise of the prussian empire and it's extension the Third Reich, could easily have been replaced and interchanged with any young, right-wing angry war veteran with a gift for public speaking. Alone individuals are nothing. They exist and take on importance only to the extent that the sytem they inhabit presents them witht he chance to act out the imperatives created by the system.

the rest is simply the natural human instict of creating avatars or effigies out of things and people we perceive to be important.

[PRC-UTE]

'Stalinist' is a mythical bogeyman created by the Trots and other reactionaries out of an opportunistic tendency to conform to the bourgeois line of the 'evil' of Stalin. When it comes to capitalism these average leftists are correct in most of their critiques, but when it comes to Stalin they are indistinguishable from any rapid anti-communist, parroting lines unrecognizable from something Hitler or McCarthy could have written.


I seriously doubt that McCarthy or Hitler criticised Stalin for undermining the revolutionary forces in Spain, liquidating the POUM or murdering Trotsky...

[Peacekeeper]

We believe in politics of the people, but here the Stalinists etc spend their time making threads on the greatness of their respective demogouge,

History is made by actions of the masses, not of an elite few.

mmm toast

Wolfie - Ever the spam king.

One who calls himself a Stalinist these days is simply one who recognizes the unique and important contributions Stalin made to the Marxist-Leninist ideology and the movement as a whole. We don't necessarily hold him on a pedestal above other revolutionaries and theorists such as Enver Hoxha, Vladimir Lenin, etc.

[Andres Marcos]

Can we not behave like leftists and leave this obsession with individuals behind?I agree, and I tried to encourage this many times. Yes I believe Marx, Lenin, and Stalin were courageous individuals but it is stupid to uphold them as strongmen who decided EVERYTHING. I uphold the Soviet and Albanian workers, soldiers, and peasants and its revolutionary parties, but that does not mean I will not give Stalin and Hoxha their due for writing good books for me to read and to get others to read the theory they contributed is invaluable to socialist revolution in my country and around the world.



We believe in politics of the people, but here the Stalinists etc spend their time making threads on the greatness of their respective demogouge,

History is made by actions of the masses, not of an elite few.

mmm toast

Wolfie you are ever the joke and the joker. If I recall on Rev-Left there is a BIG Che Guevara cult even a whole forum dedicated to him, and the funniest crap about this was that Che Guevara WAS a ''Stalinist'' and yet many teens and college kids worship him like God. since I have been here the only things I have ever said about Stalin was defense against propaganda by using actual historical facts not Black Book of Communism crap.

[Colonello Buendia]

Che Guevara was Stalinist, to the degree that he hated Kruschev

[razboz]

Wolfie you are ever the joke and the joker. If I recall on Rev-Left there is a BIG Che Guevara cult even a whole forum dedicated to him, and the funniest crap about this was that Che Guevara WAS a ''Stalinist'' and yet many teens and college kids worship him like God. since I have been here the only things I have ever said about Stalin was defense against propaganda by using actual historical facts not Black Book of Communism crap.

The forums actually started as a board and website called che lives! a few years ago and kind of morphed into revleft, if i remember correctly. this wwas a bit before my time, but before the board upgrade revleft linked directly to che lives.

[AGITprop]

Since when was Ernesto a 'Stalinist' ?

More of a Maoist if you ask me?

[ManyAntsDefeatSpiders]

His conception of guerrilla warfare is remarkably different from Mao's, so I wouldn't call him a Maoist.

[AGITprop]

His conception of guerrilla warfare is remarkably different from Mao's, so I wouldn't call him a Maoist.

Ok.
Well I don't know much about 'Che' in particular.

[razboz]

I'm going to go ahead and say this thread has again wondered away from the 'original' topic which is the myth of the srtrongman, or the individualist vision of history in the western tradition of revolutionary leftist thought.

[Andres Marcos]

Che Guevara was Stalinist, to the degree that he hated Kruschev


Since when was Ernesto a 'Stalinist' ?

More of a Maoist if you ask me?

He sent many letters under the name Stalin II. Also check my signature.

[Peacekeeper]

He sent many letters under the name Stalin II. Also check my signature.

Yeah, it's pretty well known that Ernesto was a Maoist/Stalinist. But those white middle class kids who wear his t-shirts sure as hell don't know that. :cursing:

[Invader Zim]

Yeah, it's pretty well known that Ernesto was a Maoist/Stalinist. But those white middle class kids who wear his t-shirts sure as hell don't know that. :cursing:

Nobody gives a shit. And it s this kind of bullshit you lot are coming out with that this thread was created to criticise.

[Peacekeeper]

Nobody gives a shit. And it s this kind of bullshit you lot are coming out with that this thread was created to criticise.

Who are we-lot, exactly?

[Andres Marcos]

I am as confused as you are QSL, I mean your post was mocking people who wore Che shirts so Zim should be agreeing with you. Also repeating who is this ''lot'', I don't exactly have a poster of Lenin, Stalin, or Hoxha in my apartment, nor do I even have a Soviet Flag in my apartment, and yes NO CHE SHIRTS(which I wont say about the rest of this forum as some people in here might have one or two as we can see clearly: http://www.revleft.com/vb/words-che-t24056/index.html (http://www.revleft.com/vb/ernesto-che-guevara-f13/index.html):D), like I said I agree with you on your criticism of personality cults formed around leftist leaders, Marxism is about social classes not individuals, but you gotta agree the Che cult is wacky, funny, and ironic have a sense of humour :D.

[Peacekeeper]

>.>
<.<
QSL? Oh, you mean me. I think.

I am in favor of a lot of actions taken by the USSR under Lenin and Stalin, as well as Stalin's contribution to the ideology of Marxism-Leninism. I, too, am not in favor of personality cults, as the true hero is the entire movement, not a specific individual. I was just venting at those middle class kids who think it is "hip" or "cool" to "look communist."
Oh, and everything I've read by Hoxha has made a lot of sense. Except his views on Party ideological purity. But other than that, Grade A.

EDIT: Just typed all that and realized your post says "as you are," not "who you are." Haha, too late now. *post quick reply*

[Raúl Duke]

I agree with Zim here; the study of societal conditions of a particular era should take primacy over the study of people deemed "Great" or sole specific events.

Actually I would like to see studies/threads here that focus more on history that could be majorly relevant to the present since it would provide us with facts to understand today's issues and situation.

[Prairie Fire]

This whole thread seems like a rebuttle to a point that no one put forward.

Zim, review this thread, and notice that the majority of HU are in agreement with you. If you had even a remote idea what you were talking about in regards to our position,you would never lump Hoxhaist ML's in as "Great man" ideologists, because we're nothing of the kind. Now, I realize that perhaps we weren't your only target, but you did mention Enver (No one else,) in the title of this thread, so I think it's fair to say you were trying to get some HU attention.

No one in the HU has ever proffesed the "Great man" historical point of view. We may adhear to the line of certain Marxist theoreticians, or applaud the actions of certain socialist leaders, but that isn't the same thing. Concurring with a guy like Darwin about his outlook on Evolution isn't the same thing as attributing all credit for the process of evolution to him persynally, you dig?

This whole thread is based on a cliched, poorly built strawman, and quite frankly it's a little bizzare and sad. I mean, I guess that's one way to win an ideological discussion:

1.) start a thread attributing a ridiculous position to your vaguely defined ideological adversaries, who are not even present.

2.) Proceed to debunk the feeble strawman that you yourself just laid down, all the while acting as though you are debating with anyone other than yourself.


3.) Act as though you are calling attention to a prevailant erronous conception on revleft and the radical left, rather than just arm-wrestling yourself with a bad strawman you pulled out of your ass.

Weak, zim.


the number of threads on Trotsky, Stalin, Hoxha, Lenin, or some other 'key' individual, probably make up over half the threads on this forum.

I've told people several times how to deal with this problem. If you dislike a certain socialist persynality, and would like to reduce the amount of threads about them, here's what you do:

Stop starting them.

In actuality, it is the people who apparently can't stand these "authortarians" (but for some reason, can't stop talking about them,) who start at least three quarters of all the threads about them on revleft. The actual adhearants of these socialist persynalities, like the HU, don't usually exalt their ideological leaders with repetative ass-kissing threads, mostly prefering to focus on theoretical discussion and comparing/contrasting the actions of other socialist groups and leaders.

Look at my post history, and everyone else in the HU, and tell me how many threads I've started about Lenin. If none, how about Stalin? Hoxha, perhaps?

Piss poor analysis and bad cliche of those that follow certain socialist trends, I must say.

[Die Neue Zeit]

PF, in spite of our differences, I think Zim should've used Avakian instead. ;)

[Invader Zim]

Well don't PF, you have managed to provide an even more inane retort than mustered by Krell, a vast achievement considering how utterly stupid his comments were.


This whole thread seems like a rebuttle to a point that no one put forward.On the contrary this idea of great man history is etched across the history forum. You should pay greater attention in future.



Zim, review this thread, and notice that the majority of HU are in agreement with you.And? As I said, the individual I used was not to critique the HU, it could have been any individual. It would help if you read and understood the topics before commenting on them.


No one in the HU has ever proffesed the "Great man" historical point of view.You are, as usual, utterly wrong. I have regularly seen members of the HU profess exactly those kinds of sentiments regarding various 'Communist' leaders, to take Mantis's comments on Stalin as an example (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1081495&postcount=5): -

"it was Stalin who truly implemented Marxism-Leninism on a national scale for the first time; and incredible achievement."



This whole thread is based on a cliched, poorly built strawman,The only way a person could possibly think that is if they are too inept to grasp the point of the thread or haven't read it.



1.) start a thread attributing a ridiculous position to your vaguely defined ideological adversaries,It has nothing to with ideology, had you been paying attention you would have noted that I extend this criticism across the modern left.




3.) Act as though you are calling attention to a prevailant erronous conceThis statement is inane drivel; you will have to write it again, but this time with at least a degree of coherence. That is if you want anyone to be able to understand it.

[Prairie Fire]

Nice to see you are selectively responding to my post, Zim, and ignoring points that contradict your own brilliant responses.

Re-read my post, as the end, for unknown reasons, got cut off previously. I fixed it.

[Invader Zim]

and ignoring points that contradict your own brilliant responses.You didn't say anything that contradicted my position, which you have utterly misunderstood. You seem to be under the opinion that this thread was an attack on the HU; its not, get over yourself, and your insignificant union.


Re-read the OP, attempt to understand it and respond intelligently or fuck off.

[Andres Marcos]

No substance and full of arrogance, obviously if someone disagrees then they must be according to IZ be brain dead for not recognizing his brilliance and giving him his due:


you have managed to provide an even more inane retort than mustered by Krell, a vast achievement considering how utterly stupid his comments were.

It would help if you read and understood the topics before commenting on them.
You are, as usual, utterly wrong.
It has nothing to with ideology, had you been paying attention you would have noted that I extend this criticism across the modern left.
This statement is inane drivel; you will have to write it again, but this time with at least a degree of coherence. That is if you want anyone to be able to understand it.You would make a good condescending professor Zim, stop being an arrogant elitist and respond with a defense of what you said instead of petty insults, which must make you feel good having such an ''advanced'' vocabulary.


attempt to understand it and respond intelligently or fuck off.I would suggest the same.

Play nice now, most people are agreeing with you on individual cults but that does not give you license to act arrogant with your condescending responses, and yes Raven was right the fact that you put Hoxha in the title was intentional as was evident in your sentence:



So do we really need all these threads on him, or those like him?
Go ahead and check the Hoxhaists forum There is ONE thread on Hoxha's death and one on Lenin's bday, and no photos of Hoxha only of the beautiful Albanian nation. compare that with the Trotskyist group:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?do=grouppictures&groupid=13

Your accusation of personality cult certainly was aimed at MLs but it was a stereotyped one since we have not started threads saying Hail the Gods of Marx through Hoxha, or our Marxist is better than yours on the contrary it was ''your lot'' who has been doing this check the Trotsky thread, the Hoxhaist ''danger'' thread, the Stalin hero or villain thread etc. etc. trying with a fools's desperation to smear us as ''holocaust deniers'', ''red fascists'', ''stalin-kiddies(which is REALLY ironic)'', and other typical liberal labels.

[Comrade Rage]

You are, as usual, utterly wrong. I have regularly seen members of the HU profess exactly those kinds of sentiments regarding various 'Communist' leaders, to take Mantis's comments on Stalin as an example (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1081495&postcount=5): -

"it was Stalin who truly implemented Marxism-Leninism on a national scale for the first time; and incredible achievement."That's not really a good example, since it was taken from a debate on Stalin (the man). (Stalin, hero or villain.) Obviously we are going to defend Comrade Stalin against personal attacks. What you failed to mention is that the people attacking him are guilty of idol-worship, since they seem to blame the entire downfall of Soviet communism to one man.


It has nothing to with ideology, had you been paying attention you would have noted that I extend this criticism across the modern left. Why did you single out Hoxha anyway? Especially when Avakian is pretty much the worst political cultist of our time?


This statement is inane drivel; you will have to write it again, but this time with at least a degree of coherence. That is if you want anyone to be able to understand it.How was that hard to read?:confused:

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Careful, CC. The Avakianites on this board don't like their cult leader to be scrutinized to the level we want him to be scrutinized. ;)

[Invader Zim]

No substance and full of arrogance, obviously if someone disagrees then they must be according to IZ be brain dead for not recognizing his brilliance and giving him his due:Where did I call PF 'brain dead' or attack PF's person? Don't make stuff up, you have done exactly what PF has, incorrectly, accused me of doing, creating a strawman.


stop being an arrogant elitist and respond with a defense of what you said instead of petty insults,I haven't levelled any insults; I stated that arguments and statements are stupid not the person making them; an important distinction.


and yes Raven was right the fact that you put Hoxha in the title was intentional as was evident in your sentence:Which is utterly irrelevent; and had you understood the point of this thread you would have gathered that. The individual in question is not important. As for PF, she is an adult, and doesn't require your, thus far, meagre efforts in her defence.


compare that with the Trotskyist group:Had you bothered to read the OP you may have noticed that Trotsky was also on the list.


That's not really a good example,On the contrary it is an apt example, as Mantis suggests that it was Stalin who was the key force behind an entire ideological shift across a massive nation. that is individualist history through and through. Just because it was in a thread on Stalin, which is another apt example of what I am complaining about, doesn't alter what the statement was and is. If anything the thread further proves my point.


Why did you single out Hoxha anyway?I didn't, he joins Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky and any other supposedly "'key' individual", as examples i listed. As for Hoxha being in the title, he was just the first such leader who came to mind when I wrote the thread title. Also it was not an attack on Hoxha, it was an attack on a historical paradigm and general focus. Hoxha was and is simply an example of a historical figure who is discussed on this board.


Especially when Avakian is pretty much the worst political cultist of our time?Irrelevent, you don't seem to understand that is not what I am attacking; I am attacking a trend in historiography. It has nothing to do with Hoxha, Avakain (who isn't even a historical figure yet) or any other historical figure you could care to mention; it has to do with historians and how people on this board approach history and the hundreds of threads dedicated to looking at 'x' important figure.


How was that hard to read?It was cut up mid sentence.


What you failed to mention is that the people attacking him are guilty of idol-worship,On the contrary, I used all encompassing language which can include threads of hero-worship, general historical investigation and castigation.

[Illus]

Zim, you seem to be basing your entire view off a stereotype you have developed of your imaginary enemy, so it's rather hard to respond when you have obviously already decided how everything is.

I'd say it seems pretty obviously to everyone involved here that you are being immature, possibly jealous of the support the 'Hoxhaists' have I suspect.

[Invader Zim]

Zim, you seem to be basing your entire view off a stereotype you have developed of your imaginary enemy, so it's rather hard to respond when you have obviously already decided how everything is.

I'd say it seems pretty obviously to everyone involved here that you are being immature, possibly jealous of the support the 'Hoxhaists' have I suspect.


you seem to be basing your entire view off a stereotypeThe only 'view' I am stating here is that this forum is dominated by threads revolving around individuals, which is a fact. There is no stereotype of the HU or any other group, as this thread is not about them and never has been. That they don't understand that, and are widly jumping to the defence of their 'Union' and to Hoxha is laughable as neither are the target of this thread.


I'd say it seems pretty obviously to everyone involved here that you are being immature, possibly jealous of the support the 'Hoxhaists' have I suspect.Well Illus, i would say it seems pretty obvious that you haven't read the thread, and as a result fail to understand the point and that you are simply jumping on the band wagon.


Read the thread's tags, look them up, and maybe you will begin to see what this is all about. That goes for HU members who bizarrely believe that they have been slighted by this thread.

[Andres Marcos]

"Where did I call PF 'brain dead' or attack PF's person? Don't make stuff up, you have done exactly what PF has, incorrectly, accused me of doing, creating a strawman."

No Mr. Zim you do not have to say the words for people to see what you are getting at, you give off this attitude that anyone who challenges you ''must obviously not have read" your rebuttle to a non-existant debate (as you are not finding anyone who has disagreed with you on hero worship and demonizing of individuals), and to defend yourself you constantly make feeble challenges to their intelligence by saying they did not read as you will do in your next excerpts I will put up.


"Which is utterly irrelevent; and had you understood the point of this thread you would have gathered that. The individual in question is not important."
I think I already got that point when I said I AGREED with you. Which entails READING the thread, its not like its a long paper, I can read a few paragraphs, you IZ come off as an elitist for the simple fact that anyone who challenges your holiness must be a plebian illiterate who cant read your redundant paragraphs and crude analogies, and thus it is only a grace to have your criticism, so by all means go ahead I await your next failed attempt to make anyone who dares challenge you of ''not being able to comprehend a measly few paragraphs" as you have repeatedly done. People should loath young eggheads like yourself.


As for PF, she is an adult, and doesn't require your, thus far, meagre efforts in her defence.Yes that is correct she is a grown woman perfectly capable of defending herself and that was not the intentions of my posts, I did not post to defend PF as I did to point out an arrogant college brat who thinks anyone who questions what audience he posted this for, cannot read and comprehend his next best polemic to a non-existent debate, or is it that you were just interested in increasing your already inflated post count with posting an argument nobody has picked up on? Either way I look forward to the next post.



"Had you bothered to read the OP you may have noticed that Trotsky was also on the list."
Like I said I READ the thread, I noticed Trotsky, Lenin, Stalin, and Hoxha in the thread(you know which I would find by reading) Maybe if YOU would have understood the context of what I was saying, the Hoxhaist group has only ONE thread honoring Hoxha, and contrary to clowns like Wolfie we have made little in terms to contributing to this hero worship(in fact I as well as Slavyanksy, who left this forum have criticized it for it allows for Stalin to be perceived as a omnipotent leader with control over everything), it is merely a stereotype you are playing, I hardly visit these forums at all, and I know the only threads I have seen where HU members have posted about Stalin or Hoxha was in defense against typical attacks of ''totalitarianism'', and other liberal conquest garbage that seeks to make these two people out to be strongmen, when they WERE as you said two individuals. If anything a lot of comrades are tired of constantly debating with people over the internet as they have much more important things to do like organizing for the APL congress or working we don't have time to post little agreement-festival threads on Revleft from our elite universities soley to make ourselves feel big.

[Prairie Fire]

Okay, finally a spare moment to reply...

Zim,



On the contrary this idea of great man history is etched across the history forum.You should pay greater attention in future.


I used to be most active on the History forum, for over a year.
In response to your condescending reply, I am well aware that this "Great man of history" outlook must appear epidemic to you, but given the few
examples you have presented (devoid of context), I am taking the position that you are incorrectly percieving certain peoples outlook as "Hero worship", when this is not the case. See my first reply on this thread, on the difference between adhearing to a line and exhalting an individual.



And? As I said, the individual I used was not to critique the HU, it could have been any individual.


True, and I recognize that, but a few things:

1. I am not representing others; I'm speaking for the HU, hence I will present the relation of our membership to the issue you pose

2. Despite the fact that you are making a general criticism of
exhalting of individuals, you did choose to have a go at Enver in the title of this thread. That seems out-of place, and was certainly provocation.



It would help if you read and understood the topics before commenting on them.


Are you this much of a condescending dick with everyone? It doesn't make your position look more valid.


You are, as usual, utterly wrong.

Okay seriously, it's getting old, asshole. I disagree with your positition, but instead of calling you "utterly wrong", I debate you.


I have regularly seen members of the HU profess exactly those kinds of sentiments regarding various 'Communist' leaders[/QUOTE

If it is so regular, why is it that you only have one example? I know the HU better than you do, so I know what sort of things we write.

Even your example is flawed, and I'll explain why...

[QUOTE]"it was Stalin who truly implemented Marxism-Leninism on a national scale for the first time; and incredible achievement."


Nicely done :rolleyes:. Of the dozens of people in the HU, about half of which active on revleft, each with several hundred posts, you managed to find one post by one of our younger members that validates your generalization. Bravo.

Even this example fails, because you seem to lack the inability to distinguish between giving credit for an individual (with political decision making powers) persynal accomplishments, and "great man of history" outlook.

Manny is simply making that point that Stalin did make decisions from a principled Marxist-Leninist basis. He is not suggesting that it wasn't millions of Soviet peoples who didn't carry out these initiatives, nor is he suggesting that it couldn't have happened under any other leader.

If this is a prime example of your analysis on "Great men" attitudes, than your analysis is heavilly flawed and based on persynal prejudices. You misinterpreted Mantis greatly, and came to the conclusion you'd allready set your mind on from the start.

continued....

[Invader Zim]

and to defend yourself you constantly make feeble challenges to their intelligence by saying they did not read as you will do in your next excerpts I will put up.

You construct a defence against an assault which does not actually exist, and you expect to be taken seriously? Suggesting that you haven't bothered to read the OP in full is actually charitable, as it provides an alternative to plain ineptitude.


your rebuttle to a non-existant debate (as you are not finding anyone who has disagreed with you on hero worship and demonizing of individuals)

You tell me that you understand the point, and make half-arsed attempts at mockery, but you then make statements such as this which demonstrate that you have in fact missed the point. I don't claim that there is a vast debate raging on revleft regarding the merits of structuralism (though I would argue that various posts within this thread suggest some here disagree), the claim is that there is a trend among the posts in the history forum. It is not this: an accusation of personality cult [...] aimed at MLs, or whatever other nonsense you and PF are chewing on.

So if you really have read the OP, and really have understood it, then why are you making such a good impression of someone who has managed the exact opposite?

Oh and as for the insults issue; as I said I didn't say anything about PF's person, unlike you who have not only insulted my person but also insulted Wolfie in your first post in this thread. So it seems that not only have you missed the point, or at least are giving a very good impression of having it, but you are also acting like a hypocrite.



In response to your condescending reply,

PF = “if you had even a remote idea what you were talking about…”

“Piss poor analysis and bad cliche of those that follow certain socialist trends, I must say.”

“This whole thread is based on a cliched, poorly built strawman, and quite frankly it's a little bizzare and sad.”

“rather than just arm-wrestling yourself with a bad strawman you pulled out of your ass.”

What? Don’t like the taste of your own medicine?


but given the few examples you have presented

I haven’t provided any examples; I take it for granted that people on this board are able to see what is right in front of them splashed across the history forum.


True, and I recognize that,

I don’t think you do, if you did we wouldn’t be having this chat.


you did choose to have a go at Enver in the title of this thread.

How did I have a ‘go’ at him?


Are you this much of a condescending dick with everyone?

Pots and kettles.


I debate you.

No, you don’t.


why is it that you only have one example?

Because I’m lazy, and that is all I need to disprove your ludicrous claim that no one in the HU has ever proffered a ‘great man’ interpretation of history.


Of the dozens of people in the HU, about half of which active on revleft, each with several hundred posts, you managed to find one post by one of our younger members that validates your generalization.

I haven’t made a generalisation of the HU; how many times must I say it before it permeates from your visual cortex and into your consciousness? As for Mathis, you said “No one in the HU has ever proffesed the "Great man" historical point of view.” Evidentially, that is not the case and that is the only reason I brought up him, or anyone in the HU. Indeed it was you who brought the HU into this topic.


you seem to lack the inability to distinguish between giving credit for an individual (with political decision making powers) persynal accomplishments, and "great man of history" outlook.

Wrong. Mathis stated that it was Stalin who implemented ML in the USSR, evidentially Stalin would have been utterly incapable of achieving that single handed; it is a prime example of Great man history.


Manny is simply making that point that Stalin did make decisions from a principled Marxist-Leninist basis.

That is not what he said. He said “it was Stalin who truly implemented Marxism-Leninism on a national scale for the first time”. You can try and argue that it isn’t an example of ‘greatman’ history just as you could argue that the world is flat, but you would be equally wrong and equally evidently so.

[Andres Marcos]

You construct a defence against an assault which does not actually exist, and you expect to be taken seriously?

and yet you seem ready to grace me with your responses.



Suggesting that you haven't bothered to read the OP in full is actually charitable, as it provides an alternative to plain ineptitude.


Ahh again with regarding everyone who dares criticize your holiness is an illiterate plebian. Listen Zim just because I am not a little priviledged brat who never went to college does not make me a moron who is incapable of reading, and just because you are some sort of ''leftist'' does not change the fact that you are a blatant elitist and a childish one at that.



You tell me that you understand the point, and make half-arsed attempts at mockery, but you then make statements such as this which demonstrate that you have in fact missed the point.

What the hell is wrong with you? I have said nearly three times now that I agree with the point that the individual does not matter my responses to you are not even based on disagreeing with you but like I said they are to confront a college elitist who thinks his shit does not stink.




I don't claim that there is a vast debate raging on revleft regarding the merits of structuralism (though I would argue that various posts within this thread suggest some here disagree),[yes awful reality's one on Trotsky yes I know - A.M.]


So then I must take it this was merely a way to increase your post count? Making a thread that nearly everyone agrees upon?



Oh and as for the insults issue; as I said I didn't say anything about PF's person, unlike you who have not only insulted my person but also insulted Wolfie in your first post in this thread. So it seems that not only have you missed the point, or at least are giving a very good impression of having it, but you are also acting like a hypocrite.


Yes sir, I did give an insult to Wolfie, wolfie deserves it he is a childish little brat who is only good at spamming(and that was not the first time I have seen Wolfie post stupid things), and as for you, you are an elitist I do not think that is an insult considering you have made that clear to everyone by now. As for being a hypocrite you may be right(but then again I have seen a lot of stuff a couple months ago you said as well that fits the same scenario), but then again I don't act holy when I am not.

I look forward to your next entertaining post.

[Invader Zim]

Ahh again with regarding everyone who dares criticize your holiness is an illiterate plebian.No, the fact that your criticism has nothing to do with my point (all your bullshit about the HU) suggests that you have missed something along the way. Oh, and don't attribute to me statements I haven't made; afterall you seem to have some trouble grasping what I have written, if you make stuff up you will only confuse yourself.


Listen Zim just because I am not a little priviledged brat who never went to college does not make me a moron who is incapable of reading,Indeed, its your apparent inability to grasp the point that this has nothing to do with the HU that has led to this impasse; I very much doubt that has anything to do with your position within society.


and just because you are some sort of ''leftist'' does not change the fact that you are a blatant elitist and a childish one at that.Firstly, your throwing personal insults around is far more juvenile than any scorn I've levelled at your posts. Secondly, your 'prolier-than-thou' idea of social worth (based upon the dirt beneath ones fingernails) is also indicative of an elitism of infinitely greater capacity than I am capable of; but also of ignorance and petulance, as you have no idea about my background. You are simply generating a crude stereotype, without knowing any of the facts, in an attempt to get under my skin. Is it really the best you have?


I have said nearly three times now that I agree with the point that the individual does not matterYet you still claim that this thread is an attack directed at “MLs”, or to quote you when you claimed that this thread was an "accusation of personality cult [...] aimed at MLs". Clearly, if you believe that, you have indeed ignored the opening paragraph of this thread.


So then I must take it this was merely a way to increase your post count? Making a thread that nearly everyone agrees upon?If everyone was so enamoured by the validity of the argument we wouldn't be constantly inundated by threads listing the merits and shortcomings of the same individuals, and it is something the majority of us are guilty of at one time or another (myself included, which is why I used the term 'we' in the OP). To take a woefully common example, if its an opponent of Stalin and Stalinists, it is prosing on about Stalin's various acts of criminality, and if its Stalin's advocates it is rushing to his defence.


Yes sir, I did give an insult to Wolfie, wolfie deserves it he is a childish little brat who is only good at spammingWell then, perhaps you should pause from expectorating your elitist, hypocritical and self-righteous criticism of others and engage in some reflection of your own posts.

[Andres Marcos]

Secondly, your 'prolier-than-thou' idea of social worth (based upon the dirt beneath ones fingernails) is also indicative of an elitism of infinitely greater capacity than I am capable of; but also of ignorance and petulance, as you have no idea about my background.This is ironic coming from you Zim, as you have proven time and time again the arrogant person that you are(or at least the internet arrogant person you are). Your attempt is a failure, I would not have posted on here had I not seen your attempts to make people feel that ''they have not read'' your next best polemic simply because they ask ''who was this audience for?". So if I insult you then yes that is intentional until you start engaging people with an attitude that they are your equals and not your inferiors then the scorn many feel towards your types will continue, I do not like types that try to belittle people and thus intimidate them from posting anything in the future.



Well then, perhaps you should pause from expectorating your elitist, hypocritical and self-righteous criticism of others and engage in some reflection of your own posts.Lets see, pointing out the vain, arrogant egghead = you are an arrogant egghead. Do you see how your argument is failed Zim? I believe you should reflect your posts, you constantly try to belittle people by challenging their intelligence and really believe that nobody is capable of reading or understanding your ''insightful'' posts. Do us a favor, you can respectfully disagree with someone without coming off with stuff about ''obviously you did not read'', or ''obviously you do not understand'' which you did to PF, Illius, and PK, so yes sir I will be rude and come off as ''self-righteous"(according to you) until you start treating people as equals and at least assume that they have read and understood with the best of their knowledge the point you were coming across with and still have an issue on who you were arguing this for?

[razboz]

hey sorry to but in your little monkey fight there, kids, but you both strike me as juvenile. Dont worry Zim, the folks from the Hoxhaist Union are more juvenile than you, so you know: sleep tight or something.

Anyway i'd just like thecriticise the HU for feeling personally attacked by a post and thread which clearly was neither directed at enver hoxha nor any other particaular theorititian or revolutionary figure. I beleive that the OP was more of a criticism of a more generalised feeling in history. And Zim is wrong for attributing this to be a purely leftist current in historigraphy: this is the way we are taught history since our most tender youths. Indeed in schools children are taught dates and, more importantly, names. How many european schoolchildren have not heard the names Napoleon Bonaparte, Wellington, Charlemagne. Now how many of those understand the historical imperatives and social phenomenae that moved these events.

Leftists, and historians in general, have used this purely pedagogical approach in history. Social history as a science (rather than a cute little hobby) is very much an underrated product of the past thirty years. Most of us have been brought using the strongman paradigm in history. As such we tend to replicate it once we get tot eh revleft boards. Indeed the revleft boards started off as an ernesto guevera fan club. I think we all succumb to this way of looking at things.

Zim you are juvenile because you actually took time to respond tot he HU's posts, which seem to be little more than rebuttals of points no one made. While your original post and intention was very laudable, your reaction to some of the posts by HU memebers were less then stellar and lower both yourself and your original message (as i understood it).

Now the Hoxhaists. You guys are new around here, i know that. I'm going to be entirely honest with you and say im altogether unfamiliar with the political theories of Hoxha, other than they seem to be Marxist Leninists in nature and Stalinist round the edges. When i stopped reading the boards regularly sometime in september last year Hoxhaism did not exist on revleft. Now malte or the CC or whoever gave you your own little space in which to frollick and so on. being the new ideological kid on the block can be intimidating. but only children get offended and cry and sob and throw a fit all over the floor when their favorite comic-book character, cartoon hero or theoritician is even in the smallest way slighted

I suppose what i'm trying to say is that i think the hoxhaist union memebers should not be so overly sensitive about hoxha, just as marxists should avoid getting uppitty when karl marx isnt portrayed in the most perfect of lights, or whatever.

I dont think this thread was ever about enver hoxha or his political thoughts. I do beleive it was about those who like to chant and dance around effigies of Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Brezhnev, Che Guevara, Emiliano Zapata, Mao Tse Tung, Engels, but also Bakunine, Proudhon, Kopotkin, Marcos and so on and so forth ad nauseam.

just my two cents though, please carry on.

[Andres Marcos]

well Razboz I think your point is well taken in at least my view, but I should air this out to not allow confusion, I do not care what Zim or anyone else feels on the Hoxhaist Union or the socialist Albania(IF I would have cared what people think I would have left a long time ago, I just do not respond to Anti-ML threads) that is not why I posted in this thread(in fact I agreed with him). I just did not like his posts that were aimed at people's intelligence by suggesting they ''obviously cannot read'' a few paragraphs, that is all, I agreed with him on his post and commend him for that, it only just makes one frustrated when some folks post on here that others can try to intimidate them so they no longer post anymore, I was not ''whining'' because Zim has a grudge against Hoxha(as the post did not even mention him other than the name) I was doing it for the mentioned reason(I do admit pointing out that it is fair to assume due to Zim's politics that the title of the thread was probably named intentional possibly to suggest we worship Hoxha as a god, but then again I dont know or rather dont really care if thats what it was as thats not why I posted in the thread). People will not post on this forum anymore if they are made to feel like they are not welcome.

[Invader Zim]

You haven't pointed out anything, all you have done is complain because I replied to PF in kind; made some blatantly false assertions regarding the intentions of this thread; and proved yourself a self righteous hypocrite in the process. If you want to criticise the way I post, sort your own shit out first; but, to be honest, I won't hold my breath in anticipation of that happening anytime soon.

Has any other HUer got something stupid to add or are we done?


Zim you are juvenile because you actually took time to respond tot he HU's posts, [...] your reaction to some of the posts by HU memebers were less then stellar and lower both yourself and your original message (as i understood it).Touché.

[Andres Marcos]

Defiant till the end zim, Yeahhh well I dont think anyonecould post anything else related to the thread good luck in your life, this is my last post on this particular thread.

[chimx]

this is my last post on this particular thread.


EDIT: Double Post

Hah!

Getting back to the original topic, I think it is very easy to take historical materialism father than Marx intended. While our social relations determine the long term course of human historical development, given the nature of these relationships, "great men of history" can become more relevant actors than others in terms of short term historical events. A study of how the sugar trade effected history is just as important as the study great historical figures like Napoleon, Lincoln, Lenin, etc. The problem is that more often than not we gravitate to the great men and forget to acknowledge the equally important (if not more so) social history that shapes our world.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Indeed. I think it was Trotsky himself who said that, without Marx, class consciousness would have come about, but at a much more distant date. After how, how could workers articulate such consciousness?



EDIT: Now I'm not sure in regards to agreeing with you. :(


While our social relations determine the long term course of human historical development, given the nature of these relationships, "great men of history" can become more relevant actors than others in terms of short term historical events. A study of how the sugar trade effected history is just as important as the study great historical figures like Napoleon, Lincoln, Lenin, etc. The problem is that more often than not we gravitate to the great men and forget to acknowledge the equally important (if not more so) social history that shapes our world.

I would deem the question of organization to be more important than "great men." Hitler would've remained a nobody without the formation of the Nazi party. Stalin would've remained out of power without Uchraspred.

Ultimately, the working class itself is relatively impotent without a "revolutionary and mass vanguard party."

[Dean]

So the act of putting sugar in a cup of tea, or rather the mundane everyday actions of working people, is far more historically important than Hoxha. Of course this is a rather quick and crude model I have drawn and can easily be dismantled, but I think it demonstrates the point. So do we really need all these threads on him, or those like him? Can we not behave like leftists and leave this obsession with individuals behind?

Very well put.

[Die Neue Zeit]

If Invader Zim decides to say that "a single teaspoon of sugar is more important than a revolutionary mass vanguard party," then he will deserve nothing less than the harshest of criticisms.

[Invader Zim]

If Invader Zim decides to say that "a single teaspoon of sugar is more important than a revolutionary mass vanguard party," then he will deserve nothing less than the harshest of criticisms.

This thread is not a debate on the merits of vanguardism; it is a thread regarding a historiographical trend. You can try to criticise those who disgaree with vanguardism, but I would recommend that you start a thread on it in theory. This isn't really the place for it.

If of course you think that vanguardism contradicts structuralism, I will be happy to read what you have to say.

[razboz]

If Invader Zim decides to say that "a single teaspoon of sugar is more important than a revolutionary mass vanguard party," then he will deserve nothing less than the harshest of criticisms.

Did you read any of this thread?:confused:

[el_chavista]

I don't grasp the comparison between the original accumulation of capital (in economics, what made your countries industrialized and ours underdeveloped) and the role of personalities and vanguards (politicians at the superstructure of societies).

[Junius]

Marx made exactly the same point:


Conclusions from the Materialist Conception of History

History is nothing but the succession of the separate generations, each of which exploits the materials, the capital funds, the productive forces handed down to it by all preceding generations, and thus, on the one hand, continues the traditional activity in completely changed circumstances and, on the other, modifies the old circumstances with a completely changed activity. This can be speculatively distorted so that later history is made the goal of earlier history, e.g. the goal ascribed to the discovery of America is to further the eruption of the French Revolution. Thereby history receives its own special aims and becomes “a person rating with other persons” (to wit: “Self-Consciousness, Criticism, the Unique,” etc.), while what is designated with the words “destiny,” “goal,” “germ,” or “idea” of earlier history is nothing more than an abstraction formed from later history, from the active influence which earlier history exercises on later history.

The further the separate spheres, which interact on one another, extend in the course of this development, the more the original isolation of the separate nationalities is destroyed by the developed mode of production and intercourse and the division of labour between various nations naturally brought forth by these, the more history becomes world history. Thus, for instance, if in England a machine is invented, which deprives countless workers of bread in India and China, and overturns the whole form of existence of these empires, this invention becomes a world-historical fact. Or again, take the case of sugar and coffee which have proved their world-historical importance in the nineteenth century by the fact that the lack of these products, occasioned by the Napoleonic Continental System, caused the Germans to rise against Napoleon, and thus became the real basis of the glorious Wars of liberation of 1813. From this it follows that this transformation of history into world history is not indeed a mere abstract act on the part of the “self-consciousness,” the world spirit, or of any other metaphysical spectre, but a quite material, empirically verifiable act, an act the proof of which every individual furnishes as he comes and goes, eats, drinks and clothes himself. Marx, German Ideology.

Apologies for the resurrection, this was an interesting thread.

[Invader Zim]

Good point, 安藤鈴.


Well now the thread is resurrected, perhaps Jacob can elaborate further on his view that the "revolutionary mass vanguard party" will have a greater impact upon human development than structures?

[Die Neue Zeit]

For the very simple fact that

This socially revolutionary transformation, along with socially revolutionary transformations aimed at abolishing non-class oppression and alienation, cannot be brought about by any of the following: private philanthropists amongst the bourgeoisie and petit-bourgeoisie; social engineers amongst the coordinators; legislators and administrators operating within the framework of the bourgeois-capitalist state, especially those from the aforementioned classes; so-called “vanguardists” and other conspirators who do not rely on a highly class-conscious working class; and mere spontaneous development, including social evolution and the accompanying class accommodation. This necessarily transnational emancipation of labour (not just "the working class"), which has nothing to lose but its chains, can only be brought about by a highly class-conscious and organized working class itself, capturing the full political power of a ruling class in accordance with the slogan “WORKERS OF THE WORLD, UNITE!" (http://deleonism.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=351&start=0)

[Invader Zim]

Arguing that structures cause historical development through moulding conciousness does not imply that historical development is mearly spontanious, indeed it argues the exact opposite; as did Marx (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/preface.htm).