"Revolutionary Leftists" Are Like Pro-CSA Southerners On Steroids and other observ.

The pro Confederacy southerners say " The South Shall Rise Again!"... Some of you "revolutionary leftists" seem to think "The Red Will Rise Again!" In whatever form of socialism/communism you happen to be in favor of.
Everywhere where socialism is tried, failure is sure to follow. When the left promotes "mixed economies", it's basically corporatism and fascism that they're advocating.. I sometimes wonder if you all even understand how fascism/corporatism works as an economic system?
I don't claim to be an expert on communism or socialism.. but I have done quite a bit of reading up on the topics. If I remember correctly, Many Socialists viewed fascism as a stepping stone to the end of capitalism that would eventually lead to the rise of socialism, then ultimately anarcho-communism. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong there in your opinion.

Is it possible some of the people in your camp, like Obama and the Democratic Party are actually trying to make that old socialist prophecy a reality? I'm looking forward to your replies.

Democrats are not communists, not even slightly. The simply advocate redistributing a little corporate wealth, while communists want a total overhaul of the free market system.


Acutally, probably most of us on here agree with you (in a sense), because were not borgeois liberals.


Actually, ironically, it was pro-slavery southerners who also recognized the evils of capitalism. They said wage slavery was worse than real slavery. But actually, they're BOTH the SAME.


Capitalists resort to many tactics to maintain power, the most viscous one being fascism. Other methods of control include promoting immigration from Latin America (I know it seems contradictory), to prevent revolution. Either way, the capitalists win.

The Reds rising again? The Reds lost cause of extreme harassment from the free market nations. In other words, "We had our ass kicked.", but there is always time for a rematch :D Additionally, with the current world economic crisis, we're at a HUGE advantage.

So Obama promotes "free healthcare". Big deal. They got the same thing in the ultra-imperalist UK. The only reason big nations can have a social safety net is cause of the superprofits of capitalism On the the other hand, you will find NO safety net in poor nations (unless they happen to be Marxist).

Note: Capitalism is so inhuman and sick, that is even makes welfare a 1st world privlidge. :thumbdown:

By the same token, social-democrats believe "pre-neoliberal times will rise again!" and right-libertarians believe "free markets will rise again!" What a silly comparison indeed.

Right-wing libertarians continue to misuse the word "fascism" to describe a "mixed economy." By this, they are actually comparing themselves to living under Nazi-rule, a trivialisation of actual fascism. "Well, your grandmother died in a concentration camp, but I have to pay income taxes while banks are being bailed out!"

They use "corporatism" and "fascism" as synonyms based on a quote by Mussolini about the merger of corporate power and the state. The reality is that fascist corporatism is the exact reverse of the US economic system. Whereas fascist corporatism means the subjugation of the business sector to the state, the US (and many if not all countries) has a state that is subject to Big Business. In fascist corporatism the state guards over national interest and thus it dictates how business should operate. In the US, big business dictates how the state ought to govern.

Stop the inflationary use of fascism.

As for your anti-socialist rant, it's not substantiated so there isn't much to refute.

Depends on what you mean by "rise again" and where you intend it. Communist parties are regaining a foothold in the former Soviet bloc while in Asia, and parts of South America, Maoist groups are charging ahead with the struggle to achieve socialism (as represented by the peoples' wars and determined regrouping). In America the movement is slowly regaining ground but has a lot of work to go.

Aside from this you conflate two radically different concept: workers control and racism, as if they are the same. Furthermore, the south may indeed "rise again" if the alarming rise in hate groups is any indication of the severe reaction a mass socialist would illict.

Only if the other nations fail to produce a socialist revolution, otherwise, no. Counterrevolution and bourgeois infiltration is a major concern but the battle to maintain revolutionary credentials is a hard fought one. Simply because some examples have succumb to counterrevolution doesn't mean it is the destiny for everyone.

See Tim's response.

Nothing about this paragraph is correct. If you say you are not an expert I would highly recommend that you read at least the basic. I would start with the Communist Manifest or Principals of Communism...

Here is the study guide project which may offer you some interesting guides to help you learn...

http://www.revleft.com/vb/rev-left-s...829/index.html

Obama is capitalist scum: end of story.

But don't you know? Obama's a Communist. :p

lol bru yr dumb

Obama and the Democrats are in the pro-capitalist camp.

Sometimes its just better not to engage in polemics with the ignorant.

Damn he's got us, our man inside codename: amabo has been compromised! Code 12 comrades, code 12!

The difference between socialists and southerners who think "the south will rise again" is that while theirs was a failed attempt at establish a nations a little less than 200 years ago, our movement on the other hand has been a continuous effort to change the entire world since a little less than 200 years ago and since then we really could careless about borders or the policies of bourgeois democracies- it's an "international criminal conspiracy" if you will and it is for that reason that it will never completely die out.

The politics of neoconfederacy and white supremacy in the United States is based in a desire to return to an antediluvian and semi-utopian past, in which people who were not white were explicitly regarded as inferior and legally categorized as such. Socialists, on the other hand, do not seek a return to any kind of "better" past but instead a reorganizing of society based on contemporary conditions and contexts. So, no. We don't want the "Reds to rise again."

The CSA rose as a response to abolitionism. Since slavery is no longer on the table, the south most certainly will not rise again. Now, there could potentially be a regime in the future that appropriates some of the CSA's legacy, but there's nothing to suggest that at this time and the people who whine about it are idiots holding on to a pipe dream.

TGU does a good job explaining the "failures" of socialism.

Kinda falls apart when communists don't advocate a return to anything.

This is a silly argument, dude.

Cool assertion. Why is it sure to follow?

Not sure who you're talking about on the left, but it certainly isn't us. No one on this site promotes a "mixed economy".

I think it was the KDP who basically said "Nach Hitler, Uns" and thought that fascism was basically capitalism in its death throes. They didn't think of it as a "stepping stone", though.

They are not in our camp.

Hope you stick around, guy.

wat

You mean people who advocate something want that something to be achieved. Quite an insight. I guess we are like Wall Street too: "the economy shall rise again!".

By "mixed economy" you mean capitalism with some reforms. While some of us may think that some reforms can play a benifical role in class struggle (like the fight for the 8 hour day or fights against jim-crow or whatnot) we do not seek a reformed capitalism but something else - not a policy or plan, but a whole new power in society - democratic working class rule over all of society.

If you want to talk about historical economic systems, then FDR New Dealism, NAZI german military-keynsianism, or Itiallian corporatism all have overlaps. The whole trend of worldwide capitalism at that point was towards more state involvement in the economy because of the pressures of international competition at that time. "Fascism" is not really distinguished as an economic policy, in fact Hitler often said he was not interested in economic matters. What differentiates fascism is the way the state intervines on all levels into managing social relations: in practice this means the use of extra-legal means to enforce order in the streets and workplaces.

No. Some German socialists infamously said "first Hitler, then us" but they meant it in a way as if someone said, "Let' Romney win and expose how bad his policies are and then we will sweep the next election". They saw the support for fascism by eliete conservatives and regualr middle-class types as a symptom of a desperate system - they were underestimating the threat, but they did not see fascism as a "step" inheretly towards socialism of any kind.

What many revolutionary socialists believe however is that workers can overthrow capitalism and put themselves in charge of both the economy and any necissary governance and this would be considered "socialism". Since a system where the economy is run democratically and decisions made by the labers doesn't need to exploit others in order to produce this wealth from labor then once there is no threat of a return to capitalist rule or some other minority exploitation of the majority (which I would include USSR-style "state-capitalist" countries in) then a state becomes increasingly redundant as there is less and less need for one particular group to organize production and society, these decisions then become general decisions, not of one particular class. This would then be something like the classic marxist definition of communism, a society where everyone has the same power as everyone else and so there are no classes and no need for a state to hold society to a particular model or organization.

Really get beyond the hysterical right-wing rhetoric - the Democrats and Republicans mearly play good-cop, bad-cop with the population: they both have the same goal, preservation of the capitalist system, even if they sometimes have different views of how to accomplish this.

Obama has done a lot to transfer wealth - but it's been to the top, not to the population in even a moderate social-democratic way. While Romney evoked anger in large parts of the population for his positions, Obama has been able to sell these same positions to that same group of people: Romeny couldn't dream to touch Social Security, but Obama can sell it to his supporters as the "only option" and that's the role of the Democratic party for the rulers of the US and that is the usefulness of Obama particularly for them. He can make austerity seem "liberal" to his supporters, he can bomb people in Afganistan and do things that would have caused marches in the streets if Bush tried to do the same thing.

If you're going to try and refute the entirety of leftist though in one or two paragraphs in you first ever post on revleft, try, at the very least, to have a faint idea of what the fuck you're talking about.
I hate when people talk confidently about things they don't know anything about.

The problem with neo-Confederates is they think all slaves in the south were "house slaves". If that were the case, then it wouldn't have been that bad for them (African Americans). In fact you could argue that had it better off than wage slaves in the north. But, this "Gone with the Wind" fantasy, obviously, is false.

No. :mellow:

Both I and most Anarchists aren't focused on historical figures, groups and so on but ideas and praxis; this is more of an insult to the Stalinoid nerds who cream their pants at pix of Stalin and Hoxha but even then, that's a long shot generalization. I'm not trying to resurrect anything, the past is dead, we're in the here and now.

As I always say, big talk considering the world is in total economic meltdown; yes, capitalism is doing simmingly. I'm sure loyalists in the 18th century said similar.

Do you? Because it appears as though you don't.

The ooooooooooooole I've done some reading.



This is ridiculous. Fascism was a capitalist response by the petite bourgeois to growing Communist insurrection/revolution. Ideologically, philosophically, economically, socially and politically, Fascism is the polar opposite of revolutionary leftism. This aside, Marxists believe from the capitalist mode of production will arrive a transitional stage (Socialism) between capitalism and Communism, yes. Anarchists believe that there need be no and or there won't be a transitional stage.

Obama and the DP are not in my "camp," far from it, they are the enemy.

I could very easily draw comparisons between modern anti-Communists and those in America and France during the 1770's defending the crown.

Let them download the cake eating app.