Do any of you have any temptation to Ice pick trots?

Now, I try to make a good effort to be non-sectarian on the main forum, but the more I read the stupidity of the main board the more I sympathize with Stalin. These ideas aren't only wrong, they're dangerous. They're refusal to cooperate, their willful ignorance of reality, their poor conception of what the word "revolution" means, and their ought right contempt and desire to destroy any other tendency that has ever had a shred of success. If these left comms went into the street during the revolution they'd sabotage it, they aren't our "comrades", they're our enemies and deserve to be treated as such.

So yea, you might see me being polite on the main board but whenever I have to respond to these morons I fantasize about sicking Ramón Mercader on their ass. And the funny thing is that the trots aren't even that bad, I can talk to them and they seem to have a vague grasp of the world around them, it's just these damn left comms have not even the slightest sense of reality outside of their theoretical purity. Any of you have the same feelings?

In all honesty I believe the left needs unity more now than ever due to the fact we live in what could potentially be a (and by "a" I mean "the") revolutionary period. While I think everybody who reads this will agree that there is a serious disconnection from reality going on among many of the other tendencies I am not certain if "sabotage" would be the correct word for what they would do should we find ourselves in a situation of unrest (I say this on the basis that the word "sabotage" implies a genuine desire to see the revolution fail which I sincerely doubt anybody in the right mind wants to see). The fact that there can be so much contradiction and debate amongst the revolutionary left say alot about us- mainly that what we stand for is pretty abstract but also that it is a collection of intelligent free thinkers and if that means a few hundred meaningless internet arguments for a coming golden age of humanity then I can say without a doubt in my mind that I wouldn't have it any other way.

Left-Communists are irrelevant so long as they refuse to actually organize the working-class. In any revolutionary situation they'd be ancillary to Anarchists and Trots.

Trots see revolutions everywhere unless there are "Stalinist" parties about, then it's a question of revolutions about to be "sabotaged" by them. In Spain and France in the 30's they called for splitting the popular fronts through civil war. In the early 40's in Albania ultra-left and Trotskyist elements called for a "Soviet Albania" and opposed the unity of all anti-fascist forces.

What's funny is that at the same time Trots tend to align themselves with reformists, e.g. today in Greece with SYRIZA, three decades ago in Britain with Labour, and there are plenty of Canadian Trots who insist that the NDP can be "moved to the left" through the practice of "entryism."

In all honesty I believe the left needs unity more now than ever due to the fact...

Unity is achieved through struggle. What is needed is not a unity of the Marxist-Leninists with petty-bourgeois tendencies that are themselves of scant importance, but with the working-class.

Left-Communists are irrelevant so long as they refuse to actually organize the working-class. In any revolutionary situation they'd be ancillary to Anarchists and Trots.

Trots see revolutions everywhere unless there are "Stalinist" parties about, then it's a question of revolutions about to be "sabotaged" by them. In Spain and France in the 30's they called for splitting the popular fronts through civil war. In the early 40's in Albania ultra-left and Trotskyist elements called for a "Soviet Albania" and opposed the unity of all anti-fascist forces.

What's funny is that at the same time Trots tend to align themselves with reformists, e.g. today in Greece with SYRIZA, three decades ago in Britain with Labour, and there are plenty of Canadian Trots who insist that the NDP can be "moved to the left" through the practice of "entryism."

Unity is achieved through struggle. What is needed is not a unity of the Marxist-Leninists with petty-bourgeois tendencies that are themselves of scant importance, but with the working-class.

Based on these examples wouldn't it be more fair to say that general secratarisnism is to blame for the pitiful state of the left is in rather than one side or the other? Historically they have all done their part to stop our influence from spreading but at the same time did Stalin's Soviet Union or Hoxha's Albania not do the same to them?

In a period of growing fascism can we really hope that Marxist-Leninists who are scattered across the world will be able to educate the working class fast enough alone? Its a very legitimate concern that if we do not find a way to educate faster and more effectively that we will be swept away by the fascists. So I guess that leave me at asking "What's your plan wise guy?!"

Based on these examples wouldn't it be more fair to say that general secratarisnism is to blame for the pitiful state of the left is in rather than one side or the other? Historically they have all done their part to stop our influence from spreading but at the same time did Stalin's Soviet Union or Hoxha's Albania not do the same to them?

You are comparing Marxism-Leninism with moribund ideologies like Trotskyism and Left-Communism.

In a period of growing fascism can we really hope that Marxist-Leninists who are scattered across the world will be able to educate the working class fast enough alone? Its a very legitimate concern that if we do not find a way to educate faster and more effectively that we will be swept away by the fascists. So I guess that leave me at asking "What's your plan wise guy?!"

For Marxist-Leninists to educate and to unite with the working-class, not with ultra-left sects.

wouldn't it be more fair to say that general sectarianism is to blame for the pitiful state of the left?

The pitiful state of the international Left is to blame on the artificial continuation of accumulation. Political stability is had by economic stability, and there has been no threat to US hegemony so far. Look at Greece, "the Left" is very strong there now. For more than 7 decades, Greece was just another Bourgeois country with its faux "democracy" and military dictatorship for a short period. Now, Greek politics have been rattled tremendously within a few months towards the abolition of bourgeois "democracy". "Unity" of "the Left" is important in such a mass political situation, and rather irrelevant when sitting in our living rooms.

What the Revolutionary Left need to do is to build cadres of revolutionary individuals and find the correct organizational form to inspire the masses. The rest is the material aspect beyond our control and our political strategic/tactical intelligence.

Actually, to be honest, I find Left-coms and Anarchists to be more of a problem on this forum than Trotskyists. At least Trotskyists sometimes attempt a half-assed critique whereas Left-Coms and Anarchists are often nothing more than phrasemongers.

Has anyone else noticed that non/anti-communists sometimes critique ultra-leftists the best?

I remember this one guy from Opposing Ideologies, it was the one who claimed to be a stockbroker or something like that, asking how communism would ever happen if it couldn't develop nation-by-nation, and everyone struggled to answer him. Pretty great stuff.

EDIT: Well, perhaps not THE best, but more than you would expect at times.

Has anyone else noticed that non/anti-communists sometimes critique ultra-leftists the best?

I remember this one guy from Opposing Ideologies, it was the one who claimed to be a stockbroker or something like that, asking how communism would ever happen if it couldn't develop nation-by-nation, and everyone struggled to answer him. Pretty great stuff.

EDIT: Well, perhaps not THE best, but more than you would expect at times.

That's because left-coms have no historical experiences on which to base things on. Anarchists have Makhno and those areas they had control over in Spain, but Makhno was a peasant warlord and the Spanish anarchists were themselves closely tied to sections of the peasantry, not to mention that they had no real national base.

Marxism-Leninism is grounded in reality and on a scientific analysis of phenomena. That's why the principal activity of left-communists and Trots has been to attack it and to propose vague and demagogic "alternatives" ("workers' control," "workers' democracy," etc.)

It's also funny how left-coms, anarchists and Trots take virtually identical views on anything having to do with the USSR under Stalin.

Most of these ideologies are actually twisted forms of nationalism. That is why their view of the erstwhile socialist nations is no different from that of an ordinary pro-capitalist. Recently some left-com commented here that that there is not much of a difference between first world and third world living conditions, and so the struggles to liberate the third world don't matter. Soon after I joined this forum, some left-com had claimed that third world workers are paid less because of their low productivity. This kind of bullshit is liberalism disguised as communism.

left coms have the typical troll behaviour, the more they anger you the more self importance and louder they become. Nobody likes a loud mouth armchair critic in all spheres of life.

Indeed, RedHal. They are really irrelevant, but gain some form of relevance through acting like computer viruses... that is the sphere of the Left-Coms as they don't exist as a relevant force in the world outside of the internet. It is why, though (the most) annoying they don't bother me too much as that would imply they are something tangible when they are actually internet warriors.

Do any of you have any temptation to Ice pick trots?

No. I don't.

That's because you're practically one yourself.

Since you've brought it down to this level, can't resist the temptation to remind you that you're one too.

no u

Since you've brought it down to this level, can't resist the temptation to remind you that you're one too.

I don't recall paeans of praise by Trotskyists concerning the work of Enver Hoxha and Socialist Albania. I do recall such paeans concerning Kasama. I don't recall Hoxha denouncing Stalin, I do recall Mao doing so.

I don't recall paeans of praise by Trotskyists concerning the work of Enver Hoxha and Socialist Albania. I do recall such paeans concerning Kasama. I don't recall Hoxha denouncing Stalin, I do recall Mao doing so.

Mao did not denounce Stalin, he criticized him. In the parts of the world where Hoxhaist parties are unheard of, the Maoist people's wars make the name of the great Stalin known. Irrespective of whether they uphold the socialist USSR or not, there is practically no difference between the activities of most Hoxhaist and Trotskyite parties, and they exist for the sole reason of opposing the revolutions of today. Despite its Trotskyite tendencies and legalist revisionism, Kasama at least upholds the people's wars. Your Hoxhaist groups are confined to parliamentary cretinism and serve imperialism today in almost the same way as Trotskyites do.

EDIT: Oh yes and let's not forget the way you tried to sabotage the MLM group. A perfect cyber version of Trotskyism in practice!

Please, if you have criticisms make them, but calling Ismail a Trotskyite is the lamest fucking thing I've ever heard. He's been fighting against Trotskyist revisionism on Revleft years before anyone ever knew who ind_com was.

Mao did not denounce Stalin, he criticized him. In the parts of the world where Hoxhaist parties are unheard of, the Maoist people's wars make the name of the great Stalin known. Irrespective of whether they uphold the socialist USSR or not, there is practically no difference between the activities of most Hoxhaist and Trotskyite parties, and they exist for the sole reason of opposing the revolutions of today. Despite its Trotskyite tendencies and legalist revisionism, Kasama at least upholds the people's wars. Your Hoxhaist groups are confined to parliamentary cretinism and serve imperialism today in almost the same way as Trotskyites do.

"People's wars" as the Maoists preach them have been praised by various Trotskyists, such as the Pabloites.

The Maoists uphold bourgeois nationalism and call for class collaborationism. The fact that anyone could see the writing on the wall in Nepal, and that to this day many Maoists still are trying to find the "good" Maoists in Nepal, the supposedly "revolutionary" ones, demonstrates that Maoism itself is a dead-end.

Mao did denounce Stalin. Saying that you "uphold" Stalin while denouncing most everything he did not does not constitute support, otherwise the Soviet revisionists, who credited Stalin with resoluteness in opposing Trotskyism and Bukharinism in the 20's, could be considered as merely "criticizing" Stalin as well.

According to my knowledge, Mao praised Khrushchev, and khrushchevism, and agreed with the secret speech. Well, until the love stopped and he sided with Albania

^^ why hasn't this trot been purged yet?

Please, if you have criticisms make them, but calling Ismail a Trotskyite is the lamest fucking thing I've ever heard. He's been fighting against Trotskyist revisionism on Revleft years before anyone ever knew who ind_com was.

He fought just again the more open forms of Trotskyism, while adhering to Trotskyite ways himself. His actions at around the time I joined demonstrated very well that he is anything but an ML.

"People's wars" as the Maoists preach them have been praised by various Trotskyists, such as the Pabloites.

So?

The Maoists uphold bourgeois nationalism and call for class collaborationism.

Clearly then, Maoists have inherited this problem from Stalin, who urged the CPC to collaborate with Chiang Kai Shek and later the CPI to collaborate with the Indian national bourgeoisie.

The fact that anyone could see the writing on the wall in Nepal, and that to this day many Maoists still are trying to find the "good" Maoists in Nepal, the supposedly "revolutionary" ones, demonstrates that Maoism itself is a dead-end.

And what is Hoxhaism, given its tremendous success in the recent decades?

Mao did denounce Stalin. Saying that you "uphold" Stalin while denouncing most everything he did not does not constitute support, otherwise the Soviet revisionists, who credited Stalin with resoluteness in opposing Trotskyism and Bukharinism in the 20's, could be considered as merely "criticizing" Stalin as well.

Mao evaluated Stalin as 70% good, 30% bad, while upholding his lifelong struggle against revisionism and his leadership of the USSR. Of course, to a few arch-Hoxhaists like yourself, opposing Stalin's lines on India and China, or his line of industrialization could mean opposing most of what he did.

According to my knowledge, Mao praised Khrushchev, and khrushchevism, and agreed with the secret speech. Well, until the love stopped and he sided with Albania

Mao saw Khruschev favourably for a time, and broke with him after a few years. Of course, he needed time to evaluate the USSR under Stalin and Khruschev and compare them. Maoists uphold Stalin and Mao not due to blind faith, but due to a correct understanding of their roles in the world communist movement.

I'm not a trot. Trotskyism is a bastardisation of Marxism.

trotskyism is its own thing: rooted in orthodox forms of Marxism from the Kautskyite Second international, it developed into a pretty stillborn international trend (whose main publicity came from the bourgeois press). Their fourth international was a failure. And in every great events of subsequent history (WW2, Chinese revolution, Krushchev speech, Hungary, Cuban revolution and son on) the trotskyists split because they were in capable of developing a coherent counternarrative.

There really is not single, coherent "trotskyism" at all -- it is a milieu (intellectucal, soft, half socialdemocratic, waving left phrases halfheartedly, sectarian, bitterly scholastic, focused on ancient past schisms and distinctions from the early 1920s etc.) -- but not a coherent trend (not in the 30s, less so now).

History has not been kind to trotskyism... I wrote a piece on "History's cruelty to trotskyism" which lays out my own views on this:

http://kasamaproject.org/history/981...rds-trotskyism

* * * * * * * * * * * *

Having said that, my point is that they are a small sideshow of little importance. They don't lead revolutions (they can't), they don't have a coherent critique (except of each other), they aren't significant except in small college pockets....

The anger and hatred of trots (fanned in the 1930s when they were, falsely, accused of being fascists) really is out of place in 2013 -- when they are mainly a wane, weak, wimpy, and very white political current in almost all the world.

Those who are fixated on Trots reveal more about themselves, than about the Trots:

1) They may be stuck in the politics and verdicts of the 1930s (without learning the lessons of those errors).
2) they may themselves be stuck in internet left ghettos where trots seem significant (even when they aren't)
3) they may themselves share a lot of the same economism and rightism of the trots, and therefore have to violently "differentiate" themselves from this sister current. (Many people stuck in 1930s Comintern politics, like FRSO-ML, really share a workerism and orthodoxy of thinking with trotskyism -- and so seem the most violent in proclaiiming that they hate trots.... and when you scratch it the main difference is that ISO doesn't support democratic candidates like Obama, but FRSO does.... how is that a left criticism of the trots from FRSO?)

So no, I am not stuck in a world or a worldview where people joke about murdering their political opponents and rivals. Is that the political vibe we want to project? Will jokes about icepicks help people understand what we (communists!) are about? Or will they think "these assholes haven't learned a thing since 1937 and the Spanish debacle."

Think about it.

I do agree with you kasama. The Trotskyite sects split repeatedly, mainly due to disagreements on the smallest piece of theory.

He fought just again the more open forms of Trotskyism, while adhering to Trotskyite ways himself. His actions at around the time I joined demonstrated very well that he is anything but an ML.

So basically he's a Trot because he wouldn't give you the MLM group, and none of the multiple years he spent arguing against it before you ever showed up don't count. In this case "Trotskyite" is little more than a slander. It doesn't matter that Ismail specifically rejects all its tenets, the fact that he disagrees with Maoism makes him a Trot-in-disguise somehow.

Give me a break. What is it with you people and Revleft? It's an internet forum, dude. I remember back when I was debating you I got all these weird messages from Maoists on reddit saying they "know who I am" and that I was going to ruin the Maoist revival on Revleft if I kept debating you (I wish I could make this shit up but it happened).

I don't have anything against Maoism the way Ismail does but Jesus Christ, it attracts some of the biggest drama queens the net has to offer. Some of my most unpleasant experiences on the internet have been because of Maoists.

I'm not a trot. Trotskyism is a bastardisation of Marxism.

In the Trot group's "What Org do you belong to" thread, you state you're part of League for the Fifth International. Who are you trying to fool, MLers or Trots?1

I left there about a month ago

So basically he's a Trot because he wouldn't give you the MLM group, and none of the multiple years he spent arguing against it before you ever showed up don't count. In this case "Trotskyite" is little more than a slander. It doesn't matter that Ismail specifically rejects all its tenets, the fact that he disagrees with Maoism makes him a Trot-in-disguise somehow.

He changed the group description and picture, deleted several threads that challenged his decisions, and kicked out the Maoist members who opposed him. That is exactly how Trotskyites do things. Doesn't matter whether he argued against Trotskyism or not. Even Harpal Brar argues against Trotskyism and many Trotkyites argue against anti-communism. That doesn't change what they are.

Give me a break. What is it with you people and Revleft? It's an internet forum, dude. I remember back when I was debating you I got all these weird messages from Maoists on reddit saying they "know who I am" and that I was going to ruin the Maoist revival on Revleft if I kept debating you (I wish I could make this shit up but it happened).

I don't have anything against Maoism the way Ismail does but Jesus Christ, it attracts some of the biggest drama queens the net has to offer. Some of my most unpleasant experiences on the internet have been because of Maoists.

If the internet and its forums are so unimportant to you, then why this rant and desperate attempt to defend Ismail in this forum?