Results 41 to 49 of 49
I disagree with a lot here, but I do have to agree that he does subscribe to the "strong man" theory. I find that annoying about him.
"The exploited are not carriers of any positive project, be it even the classless society (which all too closely resembles the productive set up). Capital is their only community. They can only escape by destroying everything that makes them exploited...Capitalism has not created the conditions of its overcoming in communism-the famous bourgeoisie forging the arms of its own extinction-but of a world of horrors." -At Daggers Drawn
"Our strategy is therefore the following: to establish and maintain a series of centers of desertion, or poles of secession, of rallying points. For runaways. For those who leave. A series of places where we can escape from the influence of a civilization that is headed for the abyss." -Tiqqun, Call
didn't respond to this at the time.
this is exactly what makes the slogan "workers control of production" so useless - since the late '60s/early 70s everyone has called for it in some form or another. the british labour party, the fabian society, ken coates and his 'institute for workers control' - it isn't a revolutionary concept, and one that can very easily be recuperated into capital and turned into a form of 'self-managed capitalism'. hell, even the conservatives defend elements of austerity by saying restructuring will give more power to people who work in certain industries/sectors ('big society', with it's own bank, is like a weird derivative of mutualism).
stalinists might want to change certain working practices, and property relations - do they want to fundamentally change the relations of production? that's the most important question.
Until now, the left has only managed capital in various ways; the point, however, is to destroy it.
The ones I know want to.
Again, this doesn't speak of all Stalinists and ESPECIALLY doesn't speak of leaders of Stalinist states.
"The exploited are not carriers of any positive project, be it even the classless society (which all too closely resembles the productive set up). Capital is their only community. They can only escape by destroying everything that makes them exploited...Capitalism has not created the conditions of its overcoming in communism-the famous bourgeoisie forging the arms of its own extinction-but of a world of horrors." -At Daggers Drawn
"Our strategy is therefore the following: to establish and maintain a series of centers of desertion, or poles of secession, of rallying points. For runaways. For those who leave. A series of places where we can escape from the influence of a civilization that is headed for the abyss." -Tiqqun, Call
The confusing ambiguity or equivocation between social ownership and democratic control by the workers and state ownership and worker control can be traced back not to Stalin--however guilty he and his minions may have been in perpetuating it--but to Lenin in 'State and Revolution'.
What is this piece of shit that my eyes look upon now? Where in the world did you get the idea that "Stalinism" (real Marxism-Leninism) is definied as authoritarian social democracy and an inclination to view history through the "great man" worldview. You simply cannot call everything you dislike "Stalinist." Anyways, Marxism-Leninism is a distinct ideology that includes none of these beliefs. You might view past attempts at Marxism-Leninism as "authoritarian social democracy," but that does not mean the ideology itself is social democratic. You are very mistaken. Stop pulling things out of your ass.
my definition of stalinism is very consistent kiddo and has nothing to do with what i dislike or like
stalinism for me - and i doubt i'm alone on this - refers to the politics of organisations like the communist party of britain:
http://communist-party.org.uk/
reformist, authoritarian and essentially social-democratic; mildly nationalistic and sympathetic/supportive of "anti-imperialist" states
"stalinism" has no concrete definition and even some who uphold stalin reject the term as essentially meaningless
Until now, the left has only managed capital in various ways; the point, however, is to destroy it.
Reformist, like when Marxist-Leninists led most of the post-1917 revolutions and national liberation struggles.
Authoritarian, like when Stalin increased the power of the Soviets and made it easier for peasants to vote.
Social democratic, like when Comrade Enver Hoxha wrote "Eurocommunism is Anti-Communism".
Mild nationalistic (aka: anti-imperialistic).
"Sympathetic/supportive of "anti-imperialist" states." Yeah, we are, because we know that imperialism is what strengthens capitalism and makes proletariat revolution harder to bring about. Imperialism is not only the highest form of capitalism, but also the fuel of captialism. Anyways, we do not like anti-imperialist leaders for what they stand for besides anti-imperialism, we only like their struggles against the expansion of more powerful captialist powers, which also further spreads the tentacles of global capital. It is also necessary to remember that imperialism destroys lives and annihilates entire populaces. Do you want innocent people to die and the power of capitalist superpowers to be spread? All the opponents of anti-imperialism are either terribly idealistic (i.e. talking about how absolute proletarian revolution, hopefully worldwide, is always the solution to imperialist oppression) or they unconsciously support imperialism. Most of you ultra-leftists on RevLeft fall into the former category.
There are only a few Marxist-Leninist groups who actually worship anti-imperialist leaders like fellow socialists, but they are not representative of the whole Marxist-Leninist community, particularly not of the anti-revisionist community.
BUMP. Read the truth. ^^^
Michael Parenti was fond of the Soviet Union back when it still existed. In the 80's he adopted a pro-Gorbachev stance and claimed that Gorby was correcting all the "aberrations" left over from the Stalin period, etc.
Then the USSR collapsed.
Today he's a "radical" social-democrat. He makes nice points at times, but he's not a Marxist. He also took a very lame pro-Milošević stand (acting as if he was somehow left-wing) which basically apologized for Serbian massacres against Kosovar Albanians.
For what it's worth I think in the 60's and 70's he was inclined towards Maoist China, but in the late 70's a lot of the academic Maoists swerved towards a "we were wrong about the USSR all along" view (like Al Szymanski) and felt that the USSR was gloriously marching along for decades to come as an essentially socialist economy.
* h0m0revolutionary: "neo-liberalism can deliver healthy children, it can educate them, it can feed them, it can clothe them and leave them fully contented."
* rooster: "Supporting [anti-imperialism] is reactionary. How is any nation supposed to stand up [to] the might of the US anyway?"
* nizan: "Fuck your education is empowerment bullshit, education is alienation, nothing more. You indulge in a dying prestige for a role in a bureaucratic spectacle deserving of nothing beyond contempt."
* Alexios: "To the Board Administration: Ismail [...] needs to be eliminated from this forum."
