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

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

It's not desperate at all, it's really quite easy. Anybody with a brain knows that Ismail is not a Trotskyite, and the fact that some Maoist who joined in 2012 while he's been around much longer debating against counterrevolutionary trends is really just the funniest thing I've encountered in a while. I mean Jesus, you even admitted yourself you're just using "Trotskyite" as an insult here. You could call him a neoconservative if you wanted. Plus, "desperate" implies that I'm somehow losing, when really it's only you and a few other diehard Maoists who have any real dislike of Ismail. Not really desperate when it's only 1-3 people.

I'll post here for as long as I am able to. If in a hypothetical situation you gained control of the ML group and banned me for being a Trotskyite (lol), I wouldn't get my panties in a twist and talk about how the glorious Hoxhaist revival of Revleft has been derailed. I would just laugh at your stupidity and move on. But as long as I'm able to come here, I may as well point out your nonsense while I'm able to.

In discussion, many people (especially when they are younger and just developing a worldview) "try on" different politics and ideas.

I have often argued for an idea hard -- and against other ideas -- seeking to learn "how they hold up."

And (this may be obvious) almost all the ideas I now hold I once argued hard against.... and (when I argued against them in depth) I was impressed and won over by the counterargument.

I think we should allow room for people to explore ideas, to try out arguments. And certainly we should allow people (including ourselves) to change our minds about things.

How is revolution possible if people don't engage over great divides of ideology, and if we don't have confidence that people can change their minds? And if we expect to lead millions of people along a complex path of transformation, is it possible that our own ideas won't be challenged and transformed in that process?

So my view is that we should focus on the ideas, not mock and denounce various people. And we should work to have forums where people engage based on substance (not snark), so that ideas can contend and so that people followng the debate can make up their minds.

That is very different from a method that works by inventing labels (as weasel words)... and tried to fix a label on someone the moment they open their mouth. Maoists call that method "ramming a dunce cap on someone's head." And they oppose that method, since (after all) who learns anything from that process.

Even really terrible ideas can be instructive. Let them roll out, then engage them. mao says "even shit is useful, as fertilizer." the only ideas Mao says are worse than shit are dogmatic ones, cuz really they don't allow any engagement or growth or learning.

It's not desperate at all, it's really quite easy. Anybody with a brain knows that Ismail is not a Trotskyite, and the fact that some Maoist who joined in 2012 while he's been around much longer debating against counterrevolutionary trends is really just the funniest thing I've encountered in a while.

I came in mid-2012 and found him sabotaging the MLM group. His debates against counter-revolutionaries amount to nothing next to that, and his Trotskyite style of arguing against Maoism.

I mean Jesus, you even admitted yourself you're just using "Trotskyite" as an insult here. You could call him a neoconservative if you wanted.

In what sense did Ismail use the word against Mike Ely?

Plus, "desperate" implies that I'm somehow losing, when really it's only you and a few other diehard Maoists who have any real dislike of Ismail. Not really desperate when it's only 1-3 people.

Every Maoist here knows what Ismail did, and I assume that they don't view him in a positive light after that. Of course, those non-Maoists that were purged from the MLM group after that might be defending Ismail for obvious reasons.

I'll post here for as long as I am able to. If in a hypothetical situation you gained control of the ML group and banned me for being a Trotskyite (lol), I wouldn't get my panties in a twist and talk about how the glorious Hoxhaist revival of Revleft has been derailed. I would just laugh at your stupidity and move on. But as long as I'm able to come here, I may as well point out your nonsense while I'm able to.

I won't take control of the group even if I was offered to, because I am very openly against most non-Maoist ML tendencies. Unlike your glorious helmsman, some people have principles and don't sabotage groups after taking over pretending to be a friend.

To call Ismail a trotskyite is just plain ridiculous. Ismail is one of the biggest anti-Trotskyites I know, he even puts quotation marks around 'left' when referring to the left opposition. Both of you have resorted to ad hominem attacks, and you are reducing this discussion to sectarianism.

Okay then let's have this thread deleted or something. I have mentioned earlier too that we don't start these things, but if a member of the MLM group is attacked or in general MLM itself is attacked, we will retaliate. Maoists don't start these fights.

I came in mid-2012 and found him sabotaging the MLM group. His debates against counter-revolutionaries amount to nothing next to that, and his Trotskyite style of arguing against Maoism.

Yeah yeah, Ismail hurt your feelings when he made fun of Maoism, and now he's branded as a Trotskyite. I know your position by now.

In what sense did Ismail use the word against Mike Ely?

I don't know much about Mike Ely, he seems like an alright guy, and I can't presume to speak for Ismail, but I assumed his remark was in reference to the fact that many Maoists denounce Stalin for reasons similar to Trotsky's criticisms. Your usage of the word amounts to little more than an insult, however. It has no factual basis.

Yeah yeah, Ismail hurt your feelings when he made fun of Maoism, and now he's branded as a Trotskyite. I know your position by now.

Nope, we are used to all that by more open capitalist agents, but an internet sabotage by a Hoxhaist was new to me. I guess that's what they can satisfy themselves with now that their parties have become completely irrelevant.

I don't know much about Mike Ely, he seems like an alright guy, and I can't presume to speak for Ismail, but I assumed his remark was in reference to the fact that many Maoists denounce Stalin for reasons similar to Trotsky's criticisms. Your usage of the word amounts to little more than an insult, however. It has no factual basis.

How many are these Maoists compared to the total number of Maoists in the world? Since Hoxhaists are almost extinct as of now, we can also deduce from the actions of the likes of Ismail that the ones left are Trotsky-style saboteurs.

Ind. I think you've adopted trotskyist as a general insult to throw around and insult your opponents.

Internet is serious bussiness huh.

Nope, we are used to all that by more open capitalist agents, but an internet sabotage by a Hoxhaist was new to me. I guess that's what they can satisfy themselves with now that their parties have become completely irrelevant.

It's funny that you accuse Hoxhaists of using Trotskyite-style tactics when your final word amounts to "Look at how irrelevant you've become!" which is essentially the same argument used by LeftComs and Trots both against all Marxist-Leninists.

This doesn't really affect me. The quality of a theory is not decided by the amount of people it has. There was a time when genuine Marxists were outnumbered by Bernstein-type Evolutionary Socialists. I'm sure those people thought themselves superior to Lenin and the Bolsheviks due to their success in parliaments and the number of people in their parties.

It's funny that you accuse Hoxhaists of using Trotskyite-style tactics when your final word amounts to "Look at how irrelevant you've become!" which is essentially the same argument used by LeftComs and Trots both against all Marxist-Leninists.

I am not aware of any such style of argument by Trots and Leftcoms, and it seems unusual for them to say such things because MLs are much more relevant than them.

This doesn't really affect me. The quality of a theory is not decided by the amount of people it has. There was a time when genuine Marxists were outnumbered by Bernstein-type Evolutionary Socialists. I'm sure those people thought themselves superior to Lenin and the Bolsheviks due to their success in parliaments and the number of people in their parties.

And within a few years the Bolsheviks managed to win the support of most radical workers and win the revolutionary war. That is the difference. Not only do Hoxhaists have very few people compared to Maoists, but they have not been able to do anything relevant for years while Maoists are advancing in revolutionary wars.

And within a few years the Bolsheviks managed to win the support of most radical workers and win the revolutionary war. That is the difference. Not only do Hoxhaists have very few people compared to Maoists, but they have not been able to do anything relevant for years while Maoists are advancing in revolutionary wars.

That doesn't really impress me since I consider peoples' wars to be intrinsically flawed, but this whole conversation has turned into another "My tendency is bigger than yours!" contest, so I'll let you have the last word if you want. We've already settled that Ismail is not a Trot and that's why I began speaking to you in the first place.

That doesn't really impress me since I consider peoples' wars to be intrinsically flawed,

The 'intrinsically flawed' argument is what Leftcoms and Trots use to justify their own movements being microscopic when compared to that of MLs.

but this whole conversation has turned into another "My tendency is bigger than yours!" contest, so I'll let you have the last word if you want. We've already settled that Ismail is not a Trot and that's why I began speaking to you in the first place.

Deal. I'll settle with the fact that Ismail is just a petty saboteur who calls others Trots without any justification, but has one of his fans speak for him as soon as a similar accusation is hurled at himself.

The 'intrinsically flawed' argument is what Leftcoms and Trots use to justify their own movements being microscopic when compared to that of MLs.

Leftcoms and Trots criticize Maoists for much different reasons than Albanian-aligned Marxist-Leninists do. Is this supposed to hurt my feelings? Peoples' war ARE intrinsically flawed. LeftComs might criticize them for being too brutal or something, but that doesn't mean I'm a LeftCom. And if Trots or Leftcoms happen to be right about one of their criticisms, I'll agree with them, just the same way I'll agree with Maoist criticisms of those respective ideologies. It's called being non-dogmatic, and I figured it's something I wouldn't have to explain to you.

All this ad hominem is really tiring. It's the same thing that happened when I was banned from R/communism; rather than accepting the criticism they claim to cherish so much, the Maoists branded me a "white nationalist" and said that all my arguments were invalid because of my supposed hidden ideology. Maoists use schoolyard bully tactics to deal with their opponents on the internet; call them enough names until they stick, and then try to isolate them from the rest of the group so no one listens to them.

I suspect that the real reason you want to throw this "LOOK AT MY AWESOME PEOPLES' WAR" thing in my face is because you know on some level that your ideology is flawed, but you seek strength in numbers. Using your logic, any Libertarian or white nationalist or liberal can come along into this debate and claim victory by virtue of numbers. It's ridiculous and doesn't answer any questions. Anybody who isn't a zealot will know this.

Deal. I'll settle with the fact that Ismail is just a petty saboteur who calls others Trots without any justification, but has one of his fans speak for him as soon as a similar accusation is hurled at himself.

Lol. I like how you keep calling me petty names like "fan" for defending a comrade. Ismail has been a great help to me, and I can honestly say I wouldn't be a Marxist-Leninist without him. I'm not ashamed of defending him, I'd do it for anybody I considered a comrade.

And yeah, I know I said I'd let you have the last word, but I just can't help myself answering when someone says something stupid to me. It's a personal flaw.

Leftcoms and Trots criticize Maoists for much different reasons than Albanian-aligned Marxist-Leninists do. Is this supposed to hurt my feelings? Peoples' war ARE intrinsically flawed. LeftComs might criticize them for being too brutal or something, but that doesn't mean I'm a LeftCom. And if Trots or Leftcoms happen to be right about one of their criticisms, I'll agree with them, just the same way I'll agree with Maoist criticisms of those respective ideologies. It's called being non-dogmatic, and I figured it's something I wouldn't have to explain to you.

No, Trots and Leftcoms oppose Maoists pretty much on the same grounds as Hoxhaists. And the problem is, when it comes to opposing happening revolutions, Hoxhaists, Trots, Leftcoms and anarchists always think that they are right and unite against their common threat, because Maoism makes their microscopic parties look like jokes.

All this ad hominem is really tiring. It's the same thing that happened when I was banned from R/communism; rather than accepting the criticism they claim to cherish so much, the Maoists branded me a "white nationalist" and said that all my arguments were invalid because of my supposed hidden ideology. Maoists use schoolyard bully tactics to deal with their opponents on the internet; call them enough names until they stick, and then try to isolate them from the rest of the group so no one listens to them.

Apparently it is getting banned from R/communism is what really hurt your feelings.

I suspect that the real reason you want to throw this "LOOK AT MY AWESOME PEOPLES' WAR" thing in my face is because you know on some level that your ideology is flawed, but you seek strength in numbers. Using your logic, any Libertarian or white nationalist or liberal can come along into this debate and claim victory by virtue of numbers. It's ridiculous and doesn't answer any questions. Anybody who isn't a zealot will know this.

No, the correctness of the theory of a group is proved by its success in practice. White nationalists openly seek to eliminate or isolate other races, and libertarians promise a life of prosperity to their countrymen. One is genocidal and the other is a failure that promotes capitalism. Maoist people's wars in some places, on the other hand, have been able to achieve every step they have promised so far. But Hoxhaists only talk of revolution and never manage to overthrow the bourgeois state anywhere. In this respect again they are similar to Trots and Leftcoms.

Lol. I like how you keep calling me petty names like "fan" for defending a comrade. Ismail has been a great help to me, and I can honestly say I wouldn't be a Marxist-Leninist without him. I'm not ashamed of defending him, I'd do it for anybody I considered a comrade.

And yeah, I know I said I'd let you have the last word, but I just can't help myself answering when someone says something stupid to me. It's a personal flaw.

That is not a flaw, but the fact that you are a Hoxhaist is a real source of worry. The only reason why arch-Hoxhaists like Ismail take a jab at Maoism once in a while is because they know that Hoxhaism itself will never amount to anything. So they need to confuse people about Maoism. That's a reason why Ismail came up with his own definition of Maoism and changed our group description to that.

comrades please.

No, Trots and Leftcoms oppose Maoists pretty much on the same grounds as Hoxhaists. And the problem is, when it comes to opposing happening revolutions, Hoxhaists, Trots, Leftcoms and anarchists always think that they are right and unite against their common threat, because Maoism makes their microscopic parties look like jokes.

This just doesn't isn't true. I don't know how else to respond to this. The idea that Maoists are the victims of a massive Anarchist-Trotskyist-Hoxhaist-Left Communist alliance is nothing short of a persecution complex, and the suggestion that all their criticisms are identical is erroneous. Where are the anarchists criticizing China for denouncing Stalin? Where are the Hoxhaists criticizing Mao for not utilizing the theory of permanent revolution?

Apparently it is getting banned from R/communism is what really hurt your feelings.

I'll admit it was pretty disappointing when people whom I considered comrades pulled a 180 and branded me as a closet white nationalist, especially when I'd put so much effort into defending communism from ignorant redditors, but that's not the point. I was simply pointing out that some Maoists (Not all of them) tend to attach names to their opponents which don't mean anything instead of actually addressing their concerns.

No, the correctness of the theory of a group is proved by its success in practice. White nationalists openly seek to eliminate or isolate other races, and libertarians promise a life of prosperity to their countrymen. One is genocidal and the other is a failure that promotes capitalism. Maoist people's wars in some places, on the other hand, have been able to achieve every step they have promised so far. But Hoxhaists only talk of revolution and never manage to overthrow the bourgeois state anywhere. In this respect again they are similar to Trots and Leftcoms.

Depends on how you define "success." I'm glad whenever a Maoist guerilla defends poor peasants from the forces of imperialism, but I consider it to be a form of radical nationalism, so whatever successes they achieve from that perspective will ultimately be a dead end from a Marxist perspective.

That is not a flaw, but the fact that you are a Hoxhaist is a real source of worry. The only reason why arch-Hoxhaists like Ismail take a jab at Maoism once in a while is because they know that Hoxhaism itself will never amount to anything. So they need to confuse people about Maoism. That's a reason why Ismail came up with his own definition of Maoism and changed our group description to that.

I can't speak for Ismail but I have plenty of real criticisms of Maoism beyond being "jealous" of their peoples' wars, and I know other Marxist-Leninists who do as well. This is a caricature.

Look, this thing has gone on long enough. I'm probably not going to change your mind, and chances are you won't change mind at this moment. I've taken extra care to write this post in a non-insulting manner, and multiple comrades have requested we cool it, so let's just agree to disagree. I concede you have some good points, and I don't hold any animosity toward you even if I disagree with Maoism itself. We've defended figures like Ho Chi Minh together so I know we have some common ground. So let's just put this discussion to rest.

This just doesn't isn't true. I don't know how else to respond to this. The idea that Maoists are the victims of a massive Anarchist-Trotskyist-Hoxhaist-Left Communist alliance is nothing short of a persecution complex, and the suggestion that all their criticisms are identical is erroneous. Where are the anarchists criticizing China for denouncing Stalin? Where are the Hoxhaists criticizing Mao for not utilizing the theory of permanent revolution?

I'll admit it was pretty disappointing when people whom I considered comrades pulled a 180 and branded me as a closet white nationalist, especially when I'd put so much effort into defending communism from ignorant redditors, but that's not the point. I was simply pointing out that some Maoists (Not all of them) tend to attach names to their opponents which don't mean anything instead of actually addressing their concerns.

Depends on how you define "success." I'm glad whenever a Maoist guerilla defends poor peasants from the forces of imperialism, but I consider it to be a form of radical nationalism, so whatever successes they achieve from that perspective will ultimately be a dead end from a Marxist perspective.

I can't speak for Ismail but I have plenty of real criticisms of Maoism beyond being "jealous" of their peoples' wars, and I know other Marxist-Leninists who do as well. This is a caricature.

Look, this thing has gone on long enough. I'm probably not going to change your mind, and chances are you won't change mind at this moment. I've taken extra care to write this post in a non-insulting manner, and multiple comrades have requested we cool it, so let's just agree to disagree. I concede you have some good points, and I don't hold any animosity toward you even if I disagree with Maoism itself. We've defended figures like Ho Chi Minh together so I know we have some common ground. So let's just put this discussion to rest.

Okay let's put it to rest then. But keeping the other topics aside, I would just like to point out that the accusation of nationalism is just I was referring to when I talked about the common opposition to Maoism. And this is very strange, because whenever we ask them to validate their accusation by specifically pointing to a prominent Maoist party like the CPI(Maoist), all we get in response is a vague reference to Mao's block of four classes including the national bourgeoisie. And this is very odd coming from Hoxhaists, since Stalin himself upheld the Chinese Revolution, and very clearly explained why an alliance with the national bourgeoisie would be necessary under similar conditions.

Just a friendly warning, that I shall delete this thread if things go out of hand, again. This Hoxhaist vs Maoist fighting is quite ridiculous when there are way more important *enemies*; fascists, liberals, conservatives, left-coms.

And once again this group is for all M-Ls, "Hoxhaists" and "Maoists" are both M-Ls and shall be all treated equally as such. We are all comrades here so lets please be a little more comradely.

Thank you.

Heil Ismail, lord of revleft, creator and destroyer

I wish he would destroy Revleft.