Vladimir Innit Lenin

Hey man, how goes it? Haven't spoken to you in a while...

we're both basically amateurs, so yeah... "cut'n'paste" almost definitely fits. our initial concept was music that has been sampled or covered or dubbed, along those lines... then it turned in to whatever we liked basically. and yeah... most of my friends get stoned to our stuff, mix 3 in particular...

well... ya like posts you agree with, no?

Excellent thread, very good short representation of Marxian economics. If possible, I might try go contribute an essay directly rebuking the non-marxian perspective of economics, but that of course will depend on my schedule. Overall though, great job.

Thank you

In addition:

As for the "fluidity" of views, this has to be judged in context. The FSLN of the 80's praised the Soviet Union, whereas in 1989 its leaders said that with the collapse of the Eastern Bloc meant that "genuine socialism" could begin. Khrushchev was well-known for praising Stalin to the skies so long as the man was alive and obviously doing the opposite after 1953. Bukharin, Radek and others praised the operations against Trotskyists and whatnot before their arrests, and obviously their personal views were a good deal different from their public utterances.

The only real change one usually sees is the "I was dogmatic but am now a realist" social-democratic stuff expressed by various leaders and officials from 1989 onwards. Social-democrats do not claim to be Communists, so the issue of left-wing versus right-wing in the context I'm noting doesn't apply.

I'd say it is you who is focusing on personalities, since by saying "X was still legitimately a socialist" (as you do with Bukharin) you are putting personal opinion above the issue of what policies they're advocating. There's a reason Bukharin was rehabilitated under Gorbachev and serious attempts made to do the same under Khrushchev, while Stalin was instead denounced.

Words having meanings. No one would call a Neo-Nazi a leftist, even if he postured as a "radical" or as an "anti-capitalist."

One can view an ideology as reactionary or revisionist and still see divisions between personalities and groupings. For instance, those who are pro-Albanian in orientation believe that Mao was a rightist, and yet Deng was still to the right of him. Hoxha outright called Brezhnev a "fascist" (as an insult, of course), and yet Albanian materials obviously didn't pretend Gorbachev was more of the exact same.

I notice you never did reply to my reply on the issue of rightists.

To give another example, you've said "shame" on Raúl Castro once or twice before. Is he not more right-wing than his brother in some respects? Was Gorbachev not to the right of Khrushchev and Brezhnev?

Any idea where you think you might stand on the issues you brought up? Where do you find yourself leaning (or is it a large gray area)? It might not be immediately applicable or relevant, but I'd argue that the more theoretically sophisticated the left is the more capable it will be in presenting an actual alternative to people. How do you think it relates to the Economics thread?

I'm a double-major in English and History, with the intent of going into teaching. And yeah, 50-100 contacts is a pretty great way to start off the semester - the question is how we engage these people in a way that encourages them to delve further into their interests regarding socialism, while also encouraging them to join the ISO (or at the very least getting more involved in activism, developing their theoretical understanding, and refining their opposition to capitalism). If they don't join, we'll at least have a sizable number of supporters along our periphery, which is also great. We're also getting the attention of a number of progressive coalitions and groups on campus, which'll give us an opening in terms of providing a socialist alternative and perspective to the liberal idealism currently predominating a lot of student (and off-campus) organizations.