black magick hustla

But what you don't understand that it's not lesser evilism. We do believe that every victory for the third world is good and progressive for the working class, and therefore we support it fully, not just as better than the victory of the imperialists. So as for your question, I'd say that yes, you would be avoiding your duty as a revolutionary.

Regarding fronts, your conception is simply not true. You have merely brought two cases of popular fronts by the Stalinists. In China it wasn't a military front - the Kuomintang was made part of the Comintern and Chaing Kai-shek was praised as a revolutionary. A military front was what the Bolsheviks had with the Kerensky government against Kornilov - they fought against the greater threat and afterwards disposed of the lesser threat.

I think that in your last comment, that we might not 'manage' to stop shooting at each other without a political accord, you show the rule that an ultra-left is an opportunist scared of his own opportunism. We know that we won't succumb to the political pressures of the bourgeoisie. Why are you so afraid?

That's exactly what you don't get - a military front is nothing like a political front. It is a temporary front where the working class, understanding that the greater danger to it is imperialism, not the bourgeois regime which rests on it, agrees to shoot in the same direction as the ruling class until the threat has subsided. It is the only revolutionary position, taken straight out of Lenin and Trotsky.

As for your hypothetical situation, I would support not ending the strike, but making exceptions with regard to supplies to the front. Like Trotsky explained:

"Let us assume that rebellion breaks out tomorrow in the French colony of Algeria under the banner of national independence and that the Italian government, motivated by its own imperialist interests, prepares to send weapons to the rebels. What should the attitude of the Italian workers be in this case? I have purposely taken an example of rebellion against a democratic imperialism with intervention on the side of the rebels from a fascist imperialism. Should the Italian workers prevent the shipping of arms to the Algerians? Let any ultra-leftists dare answer this question in the affirmative. Every revolutionist, together with the Italian workers and the rebellious Algerians, would spurn such an answer with indignation. Even if a general maritime strike broke out in fascist Italy at the same time, even in this case the strikers should make an exception in favor of those ships carrying aid to the colonial slaves in revolt; otherwise they would be no more than wretched trade unionists – not proletarian revolutionists."

First off, I know of your current. When I say you are a centrist I mean that, like the classical centrist groups in the 1930s, you use revolutionary rhetoric, but in the end your politics are reformist. Your conception of a new age where all states are imperialist is, in my honest opinion, merely an excuse for you to not stand side by side with the oppressed peoples of this world against imperialism. And I'm afraid that nothing will convince otherwise.

By the way, I do not 'support' any third worldist movement. I merely make the point that real revolutionists must have a military front with such organizations when they are attacked by imperialism.

My politics aren't "weird" or Cliffite. Revolutionary politics always seem "weird" to centrists, so I can see how you've been confused. And what's reactionary about my anti-imperialism, exactly...?

Oh, that's okay
I understand arguments can get a little heated on here, and I'm sorry for going at you on your mod-ship thread, too.
And thank you for the compliment.

hello,Marmot. may ask you one question?
Are you really a muslim?

[quote]holy crap your page gives me seizures[quote]

is that a good thing?