Yehuda Stern

You are right I don't support "opressed peoples", I support working class movements. Communism is not christianity painted in red, where the people who suffer more are the most "righteous" and the ones that are correct. The only revolutionary class is the working class.

Anyway, forming military fronts with the national bourgeosie its exactly the same thing as the popular fronts the "centrist" parties of the 30s formed with the democratic and anti-fascist bourgeois factions. Why do you oppose popular frontism but not what you call "military frontism"?

I'll give you an example. Suppose Tehran is being bombed by american imperialists. However, at the same time, there is a strike sabotaging the supplies flowing to the anti-imperialist front. Who do you support?

I am not a "centrist". I am a simpathizer of the International Communist Current and a Left Communist. My tendency came out from the left fractions expelled from the Comintern Parties.

Your politics are weird because you hold some revolutionary positions (rejection of Popular Fronts, rejection of WW II, etc) but at the same time, they aren't compatible with your position on anti-imperialism (You said once the main enemy of humanity is "imperialism", not reactionary national liberation movements.)

There is no such thing as "anti-imperialism" in the context of capitalism, because every fraction of capital, no matter how weak and opressed it seems, wishes to agressively expand. Imperialism is capitalism and as such, it is a world-system. The dichonomy between opressor and opressed nations is no existant.

How can you support reactionary "third worldist" movements against imperialism and at the same time reject "popular front" communism. It doesn't makes sense, because supporting reactionaries against imperialists is basically popular frontism.

Circle:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/done-chall...557/index.html

>>>> Once upon a time, long ago, before the existence of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party, there were only local Marxist circles. Disunity was the “order” of the day. Each circle had limited contact with one another, and so could not learn from one another’s experiences, success, and mistakes. Furthermore, reformism – in the form of “Economism” – was widespread, and the very localized nature of the Marxist circles prevented them from combating reformism effectively. Worse, many of the Marxist activists within them saw no problem whatsoever in their localism. <<<<

I'm not referring to internationals, though.

The 1912 Bolshevik model is in reference to the formation of the Bolsheviks as its own party. What I'm advocating is SIMILAR (but not the same, obviously) to the national mass organizational model that Lenin strived to achieve in 1902: that of the SPD.

[Especially considering current "left sectarianism" with so many CIRCLES operating in each major country...]

"Well, I do not see why you have decided that the SPD model is correct, seeing as it has already proven itself a failure. The collapse of the second international as a whole, and not just of this or that section, signified to Lenin - and should signify to us - that social-democracy, not just the SPD, was rotten to the core, and that one of the main causes for this was the non-vanguardist nature of those parties."



And how successful, pray tell, have the NUMEROUS repetitions of the 1912 Bolshevik model been? If anything else, they've degenerated into the CIRCLE-ism that Lenin decried:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/done-chall...557/index.html

In response to your question:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/sozialdemo...754/index.html

"The SPD wasn't formed in a revolutionary environment. This is the model, barring notable errors in accepting 'social-democratic' hacks, that we should emulate in the present environment, and not the 1912 Bolshevik model."

BTW, the reason why I made the thread on Party membership is because I've bought into the need to build a MASS party (but with "cadres"/functionaries at the core) along the lines of the SPD.

Though I don't consider myself a 'Trotskyist', it's quite refreshing to see a Trot that takes a classical Marxist national line - it was brutal to watch you put down Led Zeppelin, Leo, and others on the question of Palestine. It's great to have you on board!

Hey.

You have some really odd politics. In some questions you gravitate a lot to the communist left, but in others, you have really cliffite positions. (reactionary anti-imperialism, etc). For example, the only people who rejected both sides of WW II where the tiny Left fractions - but at the same time, it seems you hold a similar position to them. So yeah, you have really weird politics!