The Natural Instinct to stick to your own kind.

[#FF0000]

There's no such thing as an unbiased source.

One can try to come damn close, though.

[BolshevikBabe]

Also, anyone who thinks Althusser was a "Stalinist" clearly hasn't read him beyond the caricature painted of him by humanist Marxists.

Ed: He also wasn't a structuralist.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Well of course even withing a culture there is going to be diversity, especially between generations. I'm referring to ethnic and national cultures.
Right now we have America and Mexico, two distinctly different cultures. But if America continues to allow millions of Mexicans to come in, and at the current rate, then the American and Mexican cultures won't be distinctly different.

In what ways? Superficially perhaps, with the addition of Mexican food and radio stations, but the US and Mexican nations are very different and the cultures of the peoples and their relationship between the state, property rights, rule of law, and their perspective on history are extremely different as well. Many, if not most, of the Hispanic peoples who have emigrated to the United States are more aligned to "American" culture than to that of the one they left despite the color of their skin or the language they speak at home. One obvious example is the drastic falling of Roman Catholicism in favor of Protestant religion or atheism in the US among Hispanic immigrants, though this is not happening in Latin America at nearly the same rate.

The reason I feel I have to harp on this is while I see your point, the specific example of the USA is different and our culture has been shaped by immigrants, both willing and not, for centuries. But to suggest that the US and Latin America are going to have the same culture eventually is absurd, and simply not going to happen, if one considers culture to be something more than food and music. It's not like the millions of Irish brought their centuries of land struggle and oppression with them or the Germans brought their type of government or interpretation of law either.

But I agree with your point in general, and the rest of your post in entirety.

I hate conservatives who bash immigrants.

[BolshevikBabe]

And finally, just to answer the argument about cultures (though why we still have to in 2014, god only knows), where do you think these cultures came from BF? They didn't spring out of the ground, they aren't these unchanging essences. The way you talk about race or culture - the way racists talk about them - is in this idealist fashion that pretends there's a pure "white" or "black" or "Asian" essence. There isn't. As for race being a social construct, this isn't some underground pomo cultural Marxist shit, this is mainstream science which all but a few fringe racists accept. It's not that difficult to find heavily cited, peer-reviewed credible information on this.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

But to suggest that the US and Latin America are going to have the same culture eventually is absurd, and simply not going to happen, if one considers culture to be something more than food and music.

Why?

[PhoenixAsh]

For the record...when talking about mass immigration we are talking about essentially non white non western European non christian immigration right?

Because "culture" etc is merely a code word for "whiteness" You are aware of this, right? I mean...you have been reading enough SF to actually know this

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Why?

A completely different prism for looking at things creates completely differing paths forward even if the external pressures are exactly the same. And the historical and fundamental differences are going to create this situation, and one can date this back to the initial founding of the US by Britain and its social mores and Mexico (and most of latin america) by Spain and its very different social customs. The Church, for instance, has never been a state institution in the US, unlike Mexico where it was for centuries.

Secondly, and probably even greater, is that it really is impossible for any country to emulate American culture in the future. Not to knock on Mexico, it a beautiful and extremely heterogeneous nation. But not like the USA. In the USA, Mexican culture is a small part of our national fabric....as is British, Irish, Italian, Chinese, Brazilian, Slavic, Native, African, Polish, Persian, Vietnamese, Greek, Arabic and any other sizable minority that has immigrated to the USA in droves. Mexico is not like that, and not going to be. Ever. La Raza does not refer to a race in the normal sense but a cultural and national pride that is very different from American concepts of such (almost beyond understanding to many Americans imo, maybe even myself).


On a side note, Mexico kind of reminds me of a modern day feudal state where the central government is weak and corrupt and the countryside is actually run by lords and vigilante groups who while still being members of la raza and loving the nation are quite...different (edit) from an American perspective. In a 14th Century with automatic weapons kind of way. Though this system of large scale hacendados controlling regions of Mexico is something long in its history.

Anyway I digress. Perhaps we should start a thread on the history of Mexico and the 1910 revolution. Fascinating subject.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I think humans do tend to stick to their own "peer groups", but who is in a peer group varies widely and isn't really based on race or ethnicity in my experience (not usually, anyway)

For example, I was visiting a friend of mine on Bainbridge Island WA, which is a pretty wealthy area, and I didn't feel like I had anything in common with any of those kids even though they were pretty much all white, like myself. It seems like I hang out with a lot of native americans from where I'm from, just because they seem to have had a lot of the same life experiences as I've had. I think people tend to gravitate towards other people based on common interests and shared experiences more than anything, which can correlate with ethnicity but definitely not always.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

One human species, maybe. But just one type of human? Not a chance. Every race is different and act differently according to their genetic differences, just like every other single animal known to mother nature. Humans are part of the Natural Laws of the universe.

All living humans belong to Homo sapiens sapiens. There are no meaningful subdivisions beyond that. You don't have a good grasp of science, do you?

[Rafiq]

Oh this is fucking rich coming from some DNZ-ist. I mean weren't you the same guy calling the ICC petite-bourgeois because of... a polemic against the Russian Lefts. I mean you want to talk about acting like assertion of nonsensical claptrap in an aggressive manner gives you some credibility, then read your own post. There is literally nothing of value in it, just a banal assertion of Althusser being somehow theoretically coherent. Who the fuck cares if Althusser remained a maoist post 68? Camatte remained a Communist post 68 and he went fucking insane. A better example yet, remaining a Kruschevite in the face of Yeltsin, who cares?
Rafiq you want to talk about teenage edginess... Let's talk about this nonsense you spew about updating Marx, about some snobby know it all approach that through the shit of renegade Kautsky and that farce Althusser you have found the right answer.
PROtip Rafiq I don't give a damn about enriching the "legacy," and I don't give a damn about you. You want to act like I'm the one talking this as some Internet tendency... Well you're in the SPUSA. It's laughable that you Chavismo supporting, Third World Caesarist, DNZist (LIGHT OF THE WORLD), SPUSAer (ITS JUST FOR DEBATE! IT'S JUST FOR DEBATE! Who cares, what debate are you going to get out of that?) pretend to pass as an authority.
Its with Althusser's help... Jesus Christ, do we need gramsci too? For fuck's sale rafiq, at least get your ideology coherent. And I'm not even going to deal with this nonsensical "opposition to humanism and Althusser is pre humanism" as if Althusser defined one of the more complex things to be found in Marx... But you would rather brush off the "young marx" like bernstein before you. And yes Rafiq you do stink of opportunism. You act as if all that is needed is an ideological victory is all that is necessary: Well then read your Young Marx, you fool! "The weapon of criticism cannot, of course, replace criticism of the weapon, material force must be overthrown by material force; but theory also becomes a material force as soon as it has gripped the masses."
you certainly understand the necessity of theory, but of praxis? Heavens no. Your support of chavismo is proof enough against this.
Rafiq, oh how ye have fallen! Or were you ever on high? I think, unfortunately, no. You have this inability to separate politics from philosophy, Althusser himself revised the dialectic... Because Stalin said! How is that doing what you desire, i.e. abandoning the old movement? But, no, you place this stalinist Above that, making him out to be some sort of God amongst men, this hack becomes a mere Bernstein, revising Marx and making breaks where there are none.
What is more Bernstein about you? That you support this insane Third World Caesarism (as if some Bourgeois state will lead to socialism!), that you focus merely on the ideological, that you falsely separate narx into a mere young and old, or that you are into the SPUSA?
In short: fuck you, you wretched parody of Second International Opportunism!
That you do not see the codependant relationship of philosophy from politics is sophmoric at best.
Edit: I see the reactionaries (the stalinist, the nationalist, and the jucheist/MRNer) agree with rafiq. No surprise there. You suck when you aren't talking about violence.

What is a DNZist? It's a silly categorization that you've all run wild with. Shame on the lot of you for all of your reckless assumptions, you've created a world of your own as far as I'm concerned. I disagree with DNZ about a great many things, our politics are simply not the same, neither is our notion of Communism. The point, however, is that DNZ derives his politics from the land of the living, whilst the politics of the Left today are defined by conditions and circumstances that no longer exist. I'm not part of this silly RevLeft faction war or extravaganza, I post here regularly as a means of discussion, I have said time and time again I don't care about any of you, or what you think of me. What I post is there, for everyone to read. Perhaps if you carefully read them, instead of assuming things and attributing to me positions I have never read, you would realize I have never supported Chavez, I detest Chavez and have condemned him time and time again for his support of the Iranian state, as well as the reactionary, anti-Semitic tendencies within Chavismo ideology. The closest I have come to as far as 'support' goes for Chavez, was claiming that the standards for politics has improved and widened. And it's undeniable. To claim that new prominent political trends in Venezuela have all come out of Chavez's ass is wrong, it's not all connected to Chavismo. People have formed organs of power outside of the bourgeois state, this I claim is not a bad thing. And by the way, you stuipd fuck, Althusser wasn't a Maoist. Show me anything that indicates his works and theories have anything to do with Maoism, even his politics had nothing to do with Maoism. He may have sympathized with the Chinese state, a mistake no doubt, but that doesn't make him a fucking Maoist or a subscriber to Mao's skewed and twisted Marxism Leninism.

You talk about Kautsky and the second international but never have I said anything that would allow anyone to imply that I am a 'Kautskyan', actually I have always spoke of Kautsky's betrayal as Lenin has, I have recognized it and for that reason Kautsky's legacy is forever shamed. What I have concurred with as far as DNZ goes, is that Kautsky was truly a traitor, meaning he was, and Lenin himself had recognized this, a genuine Marxist before the renegade. There is nothing wrong with reapproaching the strategies and organizational methods of the SPD, for christ's sake the Bolsheviks were literally the application of the SPD model to Russian conditions. How the fuck could you call me Kautskyan? Have you been paying any attention to my posts, you little piece of shit? Fucking worthless little twat that you are, who the fuck are you, Remus? As far as I'm concerned, you're nothing but a fucking child looking for a hobby on the internet. Wasn't it a year ago that you were what, a curious little rabbit looking for an identity? There's nothing wrong with not knowing anything, but for fuck's sake, have a sense of humility, you are in no position to be so aggressive. You have no notion of Marxism or the existing order of things. You're worthless. Want my "protip"? Stop posting, shut the fuck up and learn.

The model that allowed the Bolsheviks to come to power was forgotten, I recognize this, does that mean anyone is asking to rehabilitate Kautsky? No. If you look at some of the most recent posts I made, I stressed that even if some of the effective organizational methods utilized by the pre-war SPD and the bolsheviks were replicated, this is not enough. The necessity of will, and the revolutionary spirit (the same one that runs wild in the hearts of some of the oldest Anarchists), this blind irrationality is necessary. Bolshevik militancy was the synthesis of disciplined, sophisticated Marxism coupled with the revolutionary fires of the anarchists (Remember Lenin, called an anarchist by the bourgeois press, called a statist by the anarchists). You want to attack me? Go ahead, try, but don't you dare fucking create this false identity for me. Don't pretend like you understand my politics, my positions, or my understanding of Marxism. So what if I'm a 'member' of the SPD? I don't do fucking shit for the SPD, I don't go to their silly demonstrations and I don't help them in anyway, I simply want to have a connection with a broad variety of Leftists outside of this website because I desperately seek experience? But you know what, I haven't got any from them! But fuck it, I've already said this before! I've said how disgusted I am of the SPD and their members, their politics, and to be quite honest them personally. I am repulsed by "democratic socialism". What I was interested in is the SPD being multi-tendency, which doesn't even matter as far as the Detroit section goes. Revleft is multi-tendency, I despise most of the politics here, and yet here I am. So what does being a member actually mean? I don't even consider them a real political party.

You dare patronize me, Remus? Who the fuck are you to talk down to me, to give me advice? You don't know shit! When older, experienced users talk down to me, regardless of whether they are right or not, they can, they are in the right - they have experience with the Communist movement and have experience participating in the class struggle. But who the fuck are you Remus? Some kid on the internet?

It might appear that I am only concerned with ideology, or an ideological victory, but only because ideology is all we can speak of on the fucking internet. You're talking out of your ass, again. There is no Communist movement today, there is nothing, all that we have today is the question of ideology for us intellectuals. And because I don't see myself as the fucking messiah of Communism or the next Lenin, I can solely concern myself with Communism as an ideology, as well as Communism's relationship to the social order. I am not a professional revolutionary and neither are you. The difference is that you're a dishonest little twat living in a fantasy land ("Hur dur, that's ironic, considering your poetry and so on!" you'll say. Just as testament to your ignorance). So you're a bordigist? You're of the Italian left? Tell me what connections you have to them, Remus. Are you involved with them? Are you a 'member'? No? Then you're just a fucking sympathizer! How could you not understand that difference? Don't speak to me of "praxis". This is something I am fully aware of, I'm not pretending I have the magical solution the crises of proletarian consciousness, but your lot have done fuck all to bring forth any meaningful insight.

And then you accuse me of being like Bernstein (What the actual fuck?)
I mean let's look at a few snippets of this complete shitpile of a post

What is more Bernstein about you? That you support this insane Third World Caesarism (as if some Bourgeois state will lead to socialism!)

Do I? Recently, I posted that Julius Caesar's politics were not at all 'nationalistic' as if he was a conservative dictator like Sulla. Do I think that there is definitely a problem no Marxists have been able to posit, with regard to the problem of the peasantry as a demographic majority of many countries? What is your solution to this, Remus? There is only one logical solution for the Left Communists - support capitalist development to occur within these countries, in order for the productive relations necessary for Left Communist theory to be applicable to, to develop. That sounds a lot more like Bernstein than anything DNZ could ever spew. But everything aside, everything aside, let's assume that I completely and wholly buy into Third World Caesarean Socialism. How is this 'Bernstein-esque' in any meanginful way? What about Bernstein and his politics would have supported Third World Caesarean socialism? You're going to have to be specific, because Bernstein is a specific man. He advocated the natural evolution between capitalism and socialism through gradual parliamentary reforms. DNZ espouses that a strong executive power with support from the peasant demographic majority forms a coalition government with the proletariat in order to combat the bourgeoisie and counter revolutionary elements. That doesn't sound anything remotely similar to Bernstein's politics. Again, it's an abstract theory that I'm skeptical has any real application given the political climate of today's world, but if you're going to criticize it, criticize it in the right way.

that you focus merely on the ideological, that you falsely separate narx into a mere young and old, or that you are into the SPUSA

Again, you 'focus on the ideological' more than I do, the difference is that I recognize it for what it is. It's all ideological, every fucking post on this website is wholly and completely ideological. Marx can be separated into young and old, just as Marx can be separated between his idealist and materialist phrase (It's funny how you ignore Marx's involvement in the young hegelians). Even the most vigorous opponents of Althusser recognize that yes, old and young Marx were different in many ways. Not to say "Fuck young Marx", just that Marx had matured and many things he held, he no longer did. Of course you won't read that. Of course you'll ignore that and go on spewing your bullshit. Of course you'll just do the same thing over, and over again. Well fuck you, it's here, everyone can see it, drown in your fucking ignorance you little pig. Of all the shit that's been leveled against me, Bernstein? Really? Are you fucking stupid? Do you even know who Bernstein was, you child? How is there any meaningful connection between Bernstein and Althusser?

When Bernstein differentiated Marx and his old self, he did not do so in terms of an epistemological break, he did so in terms of young Marx being passionate and revolutionary, while old Marx being "wiser" and more conservative. Both Althusser and I recognize that Marx consistently possessed a heart of fire, and was deeply committed to the class struggle and the fires of Communism until his death. That isn't the point anyone is trying to make. The point was Marx's humanism as well as his theory of alienation.

Which brings me to ask, if you disagree with Althusser's take on Marx's humanism, why do you oppose humanism? Surely if young Marx was the same as Old Marx, and you are a Marxist, why are you not a humanist? It's because you're a reactionary.

Oh and by the way, there are some things I do not agree with Althusser about. I still think there is a great deal to learn from Hegel and it would not be a stretch if, in a certain perspective Marx is understood as a category of Hegel. I don't buy that all remnants of Hegelianism were abandoned by Marx (even althusser knew this well), or that Hegel should be purged. Materialism is perfectly compatible with Hegel. Without Hegel, there would be no Marx. There's the difference between Althusser and I, I still hold that 'purging Hegel' would be a mistake. That's hardly worship.

Fucking idiot. Such gross stupidity, such pretentiousness. You don't know what you're attacking, you're literally attacking a straw man. "Second international opportunism?". What a desperate attempt to legitimize your own dead, baseless politics. You're not interested in defending the legacy of Marxism (Which is all that, as intellectuals, we can do right now), you're interested in fitting in. Shame on all of the people who encourage such ignorance as well, I had thought better of them. Were these not the same people who concurred with me not even a few months ago? Nothing has changed but this "DNZ" drama. It's ridiculous, fine then, fuck you all. Especially you Remus, your whole post was a complete and utter lie, nothing but baseless assumptions and slander. Nothing you have posted is reflective of myself in anyway at all, and fuck, I thought Linksradikal was arguing with a straw man. In the midst of you, he knew what I was trying to say perfectly well.

Though if anyone still has doubts, click my profile and look at my recent posts, even before this thread. See if there's anything that would indicate the accusations leveled against me have any meaningful foundations except a silly stereotype about people on this site who don't despise DNZ.

[Rafiq]

Oh and unless I'm mistaken, is this fucker really a Roman Catholic? A fucking Catholic is going to talk to me about Marxism? Jesus fucking Christ, I've seen it all!

EDIT

Does this little swine refer to this post, when he accuses me of "only caring about ideology"?:

It's not a matter of strategy, but of ideology

if so, does he draw grandiose conclusions about my politics because of this one post taken out of context? With regard to Kautsky's betrayal, as I said, it is completely a matter of ideology. Ideology means more than he thinks, to him ideology probably just means "tendency" or other such bullshit. Ideology is a matter of where you stand, what you truly are as far as your social and political character goes. You can have an effective strategy, but still be an opportunist whose heart does not lye with the revolution, as Kautsky's was. This is what I refer to. When I say the necessity of will, I mean the necessity of the Communist spirit. No one is fucking saying this is 'just about' having the right ideology, but the necessary basis for such an ideology to even mean anything. The point is that having a rifle is not enough, you have to know where to shoot. This was after others accused the pre-war SPD strategy being ineffective due to the ultimate renege of the Second International. My point was that this had nothing to do with their strategies, but their very essence as organizations - i.e. What they really were.

Also Left Wing Communism: an infantile disorder is NOT a polemic against solely the Russian left. It is a polemic against Left communist trends. It's so cute how you talk straight out of your fucking ass. "weren't you the guy..." Yeah shut the fuck up, if that's all you could have taken out from that conversation, you don't deserve to be taken seriously. So what, is it now fashionable to be self righteously and aggressively stupid? This try hard edginess, Remus, it'll ware off, you'll grow to be some reactionary ideologue, Mark my words. I'm calling this right now, everyone. Like do you actually think you can fucking get away with being aggressive and dismissive when you don't know shit to begin with? I mean fucking look at you, "fuck this website" - Damn, what a rebel you are, you probably are just too cool for an internet discussion board, it's only by your benevolence that you remain here.

Lenin had a nice word for people like you. it's called being a philistine.

[Remus Bleys]

What is a DNZist? It's a silly categorization that you've all run wild with. Shame on the lot of you for all of your reckless assumptions, you've created a world of your own as far as I'm concerned. I disagree with DNZ about a great many things, our politics are simply not the same, neither is our notion of Communism. The point, however, is that DNZ derives his politics from the land of the living, whilst the politics of the Left today are defined by conditions and circumstances that no longer exist. I'm not part of this silly RevLeft faction war or extravaganza, I post here regularly as a means of discussion, I have said time and time again I don't care about any of you, or what you think of me. What I post is there, for everyone to read.

Okay, Rafiq, honestly to this the only thing worth of value that contains even an inkling of content is the half before "I'm not part of..." because honestly who the fuck cares about the second half? You want some sort of fucking medal? Oh good job, you don't care! And whats this, it is a gift? Was I ever disputing that, or cannot you not think of a single other thing for more than two seconds? Gotta go remind the world I'm a total hardass!
DNZ does not, under any fucking circumstances, take his politics from the land of the living. DNZ has made numerous posts about reviving Russian Nationalism. DNZ has sent the CPGB many letters and DNZ has written many articles for different websites, each being met with confusion, made up words, and other such nonsense. He even supports Lassalle!

Perhaps if you carefully read them, instead of assuming things and attributing to me positions I have never read, you would realize I have never supported Chavez, I detest Chavez and have condemned him time and time again for his support of the Iranian state, as well as the reactionary, anti-Semitic tendencies within Chavismo ideology. The closest I have come to as far as 'support' goes for Chavez, was claiming that the standards for politics has improved and widened. And it's undeniable. To claim that new prominent political trends in Venezuela have all come out of Chavez's ass is wrong, it's not all connected to Chavismo. People have formed organs of power outside of the bourgeois state, this I claim is not a bad thing. And by the way, you stuipd fuck, Althusser wasn't a Maoist. Show me anything that indicates his works and theories have anything to do with Maoism, even his politics had nothing to do with Maoism. He may have sympathized with the Chinese state, a mistake no doubt, but that doesn't make him a fucking Maoist or a subscriber to Mao's skewed and twisted Marxism Leninism.

What organs of power, the communes? Are we all going to sit down and pretend like, as a whole, these do not represent the interests of Chavismo, at the most Left Chavismo? Oh and not to mention the numerous Worker Cooperatives that have been formed! Oh, joy, socialism, its coming! Politics are so much better now with Chavez, with the failure of what was deemed "socialism," with the rise of Neoliberalism, with the fact that the vast majority was just the puppet show of a military general, harping on Anti-Americanism (a rather confused, pro-democrat party anti-americanism), the fawning over a bourgeois military general (in this sense I refer to both Chavez and Simon Bolivar), because thats just so great for proletarian activity to be strangled by social democracy, Revolution is just a piss away, right Rafiq?
Oh, also, Althusser was nearly kicked out of his party because of a debate in which he showed great enthusiasm for the Cultural Revolution. I really don't know why this is up for debate, at the very least he was a kruschevite, considering his party affiliation. But that magically doesn't count for you, because "OMGZ PHILOSOPHY!!!1111"

You talk about Kautsky and the second international but never have I said anything that would allow anyone to imply that I am a 'Kautskyan', actually I have always spoke of Kautsky's betrayal as Lenin has, I have recognized it and for that reason Kautsky's legacy is forever shamed. What I have concurred with as far as DNZ goes, is that Kautsky was truly a traitor, meaning he was, and Lenin himself had recognized this, a genuine Marxist before the renegade. There is nothing wrong with reapproaching the strategies and organizational methods of the SPD, for christ's sake the Bolsheviks were literally the application of the SPD model to Russian conditions. How the fuck could you call me Kautskyan?

Oh give me a fucking break, as if anyone with half a brain would seriously and openly support post-renegade Kautsky. There is certainly nothing wrong with looking at the pre-renagade Kautsky and I have never insinuated that. There isn't much to reply to this because its just banality, besides "how the fuck can you call me a Kaytskyan" again Rafiq, you have some weird desire to fill your posts to the brim with bullshit. Rafiq I call you a Kautskyan because of your inane belief that the state can magically become the tool of one class to the next (this again is evidenced by your Third-World Caesarism, and your support for Chavismo (b-b-b-but I only support the things Chavez has done, not Chavez - fine Rafiq, let us call it Critical Support, as if that is different than support)). I will elaborate more on this later, as it would seem the very essence of your post is either irrelevancies or shock at being called a kautskyan.

Have you been paying any attention to my posts, you little piece of shit? Fucking worthless little twat that you are, who the fuck are you, Remus? As far as I'm concerned, you're nothing but a fucking child looking for a hobby on the internet. Wasn't it a year ago that you were what, a curious little rabbit looking for an identity? There's nothing wrong with not knowing anything, but for fuck's sake, have a sense of humility, you are in no position to be so aggressive. You have no notion of Marxism or the existing order of things. You're worthless. Want my "protip"? Stop posting, shut the fuck up and learn.

Have you been paying attention to my posts, you little piece of shit? Fucking worthless little twat you are, who the fuck are you, Rafiq? As far as I'm concerned, you're nothing but a fucking child looking for a hobby on the Internet. See, Rafiq, it is not that hard. Because I am nothing, I am just an individual, and for all you people know I'm not even a fucking human being - why, because I am a poster on the internet. And the fucking same thing can be said of you, Rafiq. SO PLEASE, TELL ME MORE ABOUT HOW YOU DON'T CARE! Should I fucking prostrate over you and your posts Rafiq? Why would I care to give you deference for anything, you stupid shit? You are even a Sorelian, why is your opinion in anyway shape or form more valid because it was you who were posting it? How about you show some goddamn humility! Yeah Rafiq, a year ago I didn't read Marx. And then I started, and I am still continuing to do so. I readily accepted what Marx, Engels and Lenin had to say - and I spent countless hours researching just precisely the origin of their thought. A lot of shit happens in a year. And Rafiq, what did you do? Post on Revleft about how Lenin's text Imperialism has no more relevance? Read Sorel? Do you regularly masturbate to Gramsci as well? Rafiq you have no idea about the world beyond the internet. The mere fact you called the ICC petit-bourgeois or had this hissy-fit about dues, well, is proof enough of this. Who the fuck are you Rafiq, and why should I care? Why do I owe you deference?

The next couple paragraphs are just your idiocy, which, if my internet was working correctly I would compare it to Lenin's call for a necessity of somber and objective analysis, but alas it isn't (I don't even know when this thing will post). You want to transpose the Sorelian myth on Bolshevism. Okay, do this, whatever. I don't care, and I don't care about you. You accuse me of being "some fucking kid" with "no experience." Honestly, you don't know shit about me and neither does this website, and I would prefer to keep it this way. Because Rafiq, what the fuck are you? Some self admitted brat who's not in a political party, never a part of class struggle? YOU DON'T KNOW SHIT RAFIQ! Stop acting like you are an authority on these things, you are clearly not. It would make sense if you were to insult me for being a "child on the internet" (???) if you weren't yourself a self-admitted child on the internet. Get off of your fucking cross Rafiq, no one cares about you and certainly no one cares about you not caring. It comes across as infantile and posturing.

It might appear that I am only concerned with ideology, or an ideological victory, but only because ideology is all we can speak of on the fucking internet. You're talking out of your ass, again. There is no Communist movement today, there is nothing, all that we have today is the question of ideology for us intellectuals. And because I don't see myself as the fucking messiah of Communism or the next Lenin, I can solely concern myself with Communism as an ideology, as well as Communism's relationship to the social order. I am not a professional revolutionary and neither are you. The difference is that you're a dishonest little twat living in a fantasy land ("Hur dur, that's ironic, considering your poetry and so on!" you'll say. Just as testament to your ignorance). So you're a bordigist? You're of the Italian left? Tell me what connections you have to them, Remus. Are you involved with them? Are you a 'member'? No? Then you're just a fucking sympathizer! How could you not understand that difference? Don't speak to me of "praxis". This is something I am fully aware of, I'm not pretending I have the magical solution the crises of proletarian consciousness, but your lot have done fuck all to bring forth any meaningful insight.

Oh, Christ Rafiq, more of your inane, paranoid drivel
Oh thats a load of shit Rafiq. As if I would go for you being on the internet and attributing that to your desire for an ideological victory - that wouldn't even make any fucking sense. You really are concerned with solely with an ideological victory. I can't be assed to dig up the quotes right now, and honestly I don't care to continue this "discussion" any further than this, as I don't want to invest any more of my time into some edgy internet brat. Right now I can think of you hating chavismo as an ideology but not its material affects.
I don't care if you will go "oh that's just proof that I'm right and you are wrong" this calling out althusser was a mistake, I admit, because some know-it-all from Detroit was going to flip shit. So, instead I am going to focus on your assertions here:
1. "The difference is that you're a dishonest little twat living in a fantasy land" Howso? I live in the real world, I know communism is dead, and I know my limitations. The difference between me and you is that I don't chalk up the re-emergence of the Communist movement as the result of the individual Lenin, but rather because of the actions, the will, of the Class Party. Yeah Rafiq, neither you and I can bring back the class - but that's not because "we aren't Lenin" you philistine.
2. ""Hur dur, that's ironic, considering your poetry and so on!" you'll say. Just as testament to your ignorance" - I would didn't say this at all. You made this and then attributed it to me. So you literally built up a strawman and then used it as a "testament to your ignorance." Okay Rafiq, whatever.
3. "Tell me what connections you have to them, Remus" I have helped with numerous translations, and yes I am just a sympathizer. I helped organize some people from my city into a political group devoted to the discussion and application of Marx, Engels and Lenin in the world today, in hopes of preserving the Invariant Program. I am sure that is more than you and your SPUSA have ever done.

It is ironic that you keep calling my post worthless, as your posts contains numerous irrelevancies that go on about nothing.

That sounds a lot more like Bernstein than anything DNZ could ever spew

If by Bernstein you mean Lenin, then perhaps. But even this, this caricaturization of the Lefts view on National Liberation is completely and totally absurd, showing perfectly your own ignorance on the subject. I am not going to explain the differences, controversies, or nuances that the Left Communists have in regards to National Liberation. I will just say this: even the Lefts that think Lenin was right and not Luxemburg, are far more "left" about it than the trots or stalinists (and for that matter, they are more in line with Lenin*) when it is stated that the proletariat must lead all struggles for National Liberation. It's totally an abstract theory, and in this sense that is how it is like Bernstein's: a postulate that states the bourgeois state can be used to make socialism. In this sense it is totally and completely Kaustyan.

How is there any meaningful connection between Bernstein and Althusser?

I mean, Rafiq, come on. Isn't it obvious? All you revisionists, all you opportunists, all you bastard children of the workers movement are interconnected. Asking this is like asking "What do you mean, anarchism and stalinism are completely related?"

Of course you won't read that. Of course you'll ignore that and go on spewing your bullshit. Of course you'll just do the same thing over, and over again. Well fuck you, it's here, everyone can see it, drown in your fucking ignorance you little pig.

lol. I mean, you haven't even said a single thing: you've just stated things and then commanded me to drowned in my ignorance. Rafiq, you are a fucking joke and a half. Why do you view yourself as this ideological authority who can simply assert things and then be correct by virtue of your assertion of them?
I mean, Rafiq, you want to abandon the theory of alienation? You want to act like social relations aren't reproduced by the entire human species's interaction with its self, by its relationships? Then, fine Rafiq, abandon Marxism! You can see throughout Grundisse (fuck, throughout Capital!) Marx's elaboration of the theory of Alienation. And it isn't moralism, before you accuse me of that! Marx's theory of alienation was the reflection of the passion for class struggle, the passion for Communism.
And its fucking obvious that you don't have the utmost contempt for Hegel. I mean, how else could you seriously buy into your nonsense that puts the ideological over the material (youve even done this in your post, making the thoughts of Lenin and not the actions of the party responsible for the restoration of Marxism).

Oh and unless I'm mistaken, is this fucker really a Roman Catholic? A fucking Catholic is going to talk to me about Marxism? Jesus fucking Christ, I've seen it all!

I was a catholic, but not anymore. This would be like me calling you a Muslim.

Does this little swine refer to this post, when he accuses me of "only caring about ideology"?:

heh, no. I draw it from the entirity of your posts.

I don't care enough anymore to continue. You want to win, fine. I'm done investing my time in this discussion. Go ahead and correct me and reply, I don't care. I have had my say, I have said what I need to, I will not repeat myself to you anymore in this thread. I have much better, irl things, to do besides a a victory on the internet to some brat with a God Complex. Point out the faultiness of my posts, and I will reply and show there was no faultiness, and so on in an endless loop. Well, I'm done with it Rafiq. I don't care about you, I don't care about your strawmen, and I don't care about your distortion of Marxism.

*Ironically enough, even those who claim that Luxemburg was right are more in line with Lenin in today's world than many of those who pretend to be Leninists and still support National Liberation movements (worse yet, those who don't think that the proletariat had to lead the national liberation movement).

[Remus Bleys]

My opposition to humanism comes from its religious view of humanity (as if they are above and beyond their material conditions), its absurd view of dialectical materialism, its libertarianism, and it's hegelianism. Does that make me a reactionary?
You're a fucking idiot, anyway, you referenced Left Wing Childness and Petty Bourgeois Mentality, not Infantile Disorder (which is more a part of my politics than it ever will be of yours).
edit: its fucking rich you're calling me edgy. What is edgy? "Fuck this website"? Are you getting offended at me making a joke? At me hating the social Democrats here? Well, rafiq, you regularly pay about how much you don't care about anyone here! Or is it my penchant for revolutionary totalitarianism? Well, you also exhibit that, so that can't be edgy! So what's edgy, invariance? I was expecting something more along the lines of dogmatic but heh whatever. And if that makes me edgy what are you? You pull things out of your ass and when Links called you out you referenced a polemic against the Russian lefts and called it that, as if an unrelated text that you gave no indication of how it supported you made you correct. How am I edgy then? Well, the only "edgy" things that can come from me is totalitarianism (this applies to you), hating the liberals on this website (applies to you), or because of invariance. The only one it would make sense is invariance (which isn't really "edgy"), but even then you attempt to do this by pointing to unrelated works as proof of things. Rafiq you don't know shit and when you're called out you reference some unrelated text in an offhand manner, because again, you don't know shit. That's what I got out of that thread.

[Црвена]

"Human nature," is what the ruling class use to excuse any kind of awful behaviour. Two hundred years ago they were telling us that slavery was natural for certain types of people. A hundred years ago they were telling us that it was natural for women to be inferior to and ruled by men and so they weren't allowed to vote. Today, they are still saying that it is natural for humans to discriminate, and some people are just blindly sucking up what they're saying on the grounds that they know best just because they were elected to lead through a laughable pseudo-democratic process. Nationalism is not natural, it was created to turn people against each other and distract them from real issues, and it has only existed forever because in our current stage of social evolution we still have it. And it's just stupid to claim that culture cannot exist without lines drawn in a piece of land to divide it.

[Rafiq]

Remus, you speak as though my politics are defined by the several categorizations found on this website. That is what I mean, when I say I do not care. My point is that not a long while ago you, among many others (And yes, Takayuki, I speak directly to you) had very few qualms with me, and my posts. I specifically remember many of you speaking to me, discussing your concurrences. Quite honestly I do not find any of you (Left Communists who are not of the dutch/german current) to be particularly of bad politics, our disagreements are very real, however I cannot say I have ever despised them. My point is that whatever caused such hostility - leave me the fuck out of your cute little feuds, I don't have anything to do with any of the drama you have with those in the Revolutionary Marxist group, I don't post here everyday, I don't know about anything of that sort. Grow the fuck up.

Though the first instance that I could remember, is the discussion about the ICC, which had apparently hit some nerves among you. To this day I hold that the ICC has very useful insights, I do not consider them enemies, I had simply proposed that many of their solutions, as a result of their understanding of existing conditions, were petty bourgeois. When Left Communists are in quarrel with reformists, or Leninists, they are in the right. My problem is not so much what they oppose, but what they offer as a solution to the crises of proletarian consciousness. That's besides the point, that's another discussion. I was speaking more about Trotskyist crypto-cults like the Spartacists, anyway.

Now of course our politics are heavily influenced by history, we are Marxists, our positions have come from the past. The point I was trying to make is that whatever qualms you have with DNZ's views, they are derived from the land of the living in the sense that their application is solely concerned with today's world. If DNZ were to speak about Lassalle, why would he? Lassalle had long been discarded by the Left for the better part of the 20th century - why revive him if not because he believes Lassalle has a real application to the current conditions of life today? Whether this is true or not is a different discussion. What a simplistic, crypto-liberal approach to Chavez. How could a whole political current, how could a whole mass struggles be reduced to the prerogatives of the Chavismo? Do you deny the existence of class struggle in Venezuela? For Christs sake, the protests and so on that had been enraging the country were the complete and purest expression of class struggle, the propertied, privileged petite bourgeoisie against the state. Let me be clear - Chavez and the Chavismo possess many reactionary tendencies and the model offered by Chavez is not a solution, but the communes should not so easily be dismissed. The phenomena of Chavez has greatly changed the standards of politics in Venezuela, even the fiercest opponents of the PSUV are forced to adopt social democratic platforms in order to hold any sway over the masses. My point wasn't that Chavez was on the path of ushering in a new Socialism or "Socialism in the 21st century" (this 5th international nonsense was absolute nonsense). My point was that the space for proletarian consciousness to develop was opened, the likeliness - however low of more radical politics to develop among the masses which could further turn against the state was greatly increased. I had pointed out, I am sure, how in Chile Allende's rule had done the same - many forget the much more radical elements in Chile which went as far as to call for insurrection against Allende. Of course they failed, of course nothing happened - but the possibility was there. You, Remus, are like those democratic socialists that we find in the SPUSA who disassociate completely with 20th century Communism, who claim that they have absolutely nothing to do with the phenomena of Stalinism, and all of the disasters that characterized it. It's cowardly, it's our legacy, it's a failure but it is our failure. Let's not sit here, for fuck's sake, and pretend that there is nothing we can learn from them - from the arts to the planned economy. Our slate has not been wiped clean by the collapse of the Soviet Union. In the same way, don't pretend that every expression of Leftist sediment in Venezuela is directly an expression of the interests of the Chavismo, and the 'patriotic bourgeoisie'. This is wholly Idealist, there is a class struggle occurring today in Venezuela, the PSUV are almost like the unconscious bourgeois state, trying to steer and shape working class sediments in the interests of capital.

Althusser indeed had praised the cultural revolution, as most intellectuals of the time did. He made it very clear, however, that he was not a Maoist. Calling Althsuser a "khruschevite" is absolutely ridiculous, trying to fit him within the paradigm of cold war Communist politics is absurd. Althusser was not some party leader, he was not a politician. And yes, you fucking philistine, he was a philosopher. Do you think that in anyway such anti-intellectualism has some kind of proletarian character? May as well consider domestic violence, racism and so on as 'proletarian in nature' as they are commonplace among them. Hegel, the man whom you despise, said that we should hope one day that the masses arise to us, but we should not however lower ourselves to the masses. As a self proclaimed admirer of Bordiga, you should know better than to oppose such logic, it was Bordiga after all who was adamant in the defense of Marxism and the party, indiscriminate of the popular fervor. Althusser's theory does not bring us to the conclusion of support for the cultural revolution or support for the politics of the party her was a member of. Whilst he was a member, he had always remained critical - again he was not a politician, he was an ordinary Marxist politically whose heart was in the field of philosophy. You're such a fucking moron Remus, really? You're going to ignore context, and so on? Should Althusser have joined some kind of Left Communist sect? Nobody fucking knew anything about that. I suspect your deep seated hatred for him derives from the fact that he was greatly influenced by Antonio Gramsci. And Boridga was violently opposed to Gramsci's politics, indeed. That doesn't mean Gramsci has nothing to offer, Gramsci's insights on cultural hegemony, caesarism and so on are indeed quite useful to any Marxist. His politics may have been garbage, but again, that's not the Gramsci Althusser was fond of.

"fuck althussreearl kajdf fuck gramsic fuck them all dere politics wer not da same as mine fuck them fuck everything fuck marxism too its so lame and intellectual im just gonna become a primmie like cammatte did cuz dats da logical conclusion of my stupid fucking theoretecial foundations lol"

It's true though. This is completely the ass end of Bordiga, the reason why I am not a bordigist, even though I hold the man in high regard. Cammatte, someone you often cite, was a full-fledged and committed bordigist, the logical conclusion of his politics was primitivism and the marxist homage to post-modernism - unlike Kautsky there was not betrayal as far as Cammatte went, this was a linear, logical result of his political development. And yours too, I suspect.

I've never fucking implied that the state can become a "tool of the next" class, Lenin made it very clear that the foundations of the state must be radically different. But the purpose of the state, as an instrument of class repression is the same. When I claim the importance of the conquest of the state, I mean the conquest of hegemony, the conquest of legitimacy and finally and most importantly, the conquest of monopoly over power and force. Shut the fuck up, you fucking child, bring forth these citations that would allow users to assess I "critically support" chavez and the PSUV. When the fuck have I called for a defense of the PSUV? When have I ever even critically supported them? It's you who showers them with such credit, it's you who gives them the benefit of thinking they are solely responsible for all political developments, and class based struggles in Venezuela. "As evidenced by my Third world Caesarism"? Have I ever really, formally accepted this? I claimed it was a proposal to a problem no one has ever been able to solve today, I did not claim it was a solution. But fuck it, fuck forming reasonable conclusions, let's assume all of this is true, let's assume I 'critically support Chavez' and that I think that 'the state will remain the same, but in different hands'. Let's assume that. How the fuck does that mean I am a Kautskyan? How is this distinctly and exclusively Kautskyan? Where the fuck is Kautsky coming from? Kautsky was never distinguished by his reformism, this was something that long preceded him. Again, put down your Revleft dictionary and go learn before you open your mouth. I mean what a fucking clown you are, Remus. You don't know shit, I mean that whole-hardheartedly, you literally don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

What did I do? This website doesn't define my fucking politics, or my views. This website isn't my life, so shut the fuck up with your "WHAT DID YOU DO WHILE I WAS ENRICHING MYSELF WITH INFORmATION!!!111". You don't know anything about me, but I know for a fact that you're doing all of this to fit in this website. It's stupid. It's good that in a year you've dedicated such effort into trying to understand Marxism, but it takes a bit more than a fucking year to really apply this wholly. It takes time to understand everything in the grand scheme of things, apply them, to really apply this and understand reality in terms of whole truth based on these premises, something I have been starting to realize in the past year, myself. You're see soon enough too, Remus. You have absolutely no fucking right to talk down to me, I've been exactly where you have. Maybe if you've been here for a bit longer you would have realized that about two years back I was a self-proclaimed Bordigist, too.

But holy hell, when the fuck did I claim that Imperialism had no relevancy? As far as understanding capitalism today goes, it is all the more relevant than it ever has been. What I did claim was that Lenin's thesis on national liberation had no relevancy today, it were to be applied today we would be compelled to support the Taliban, among many other reactionary anti-imperialist movements. We live in a world where national-determination has been rendered impossible, capitalism has truly globalized. IS THIS A "BERNSTEIN-ESQUE" POSITION, TOO? NO! It's more like an application of Luxemburg if anything else. Didn't the fucking ICC say something along the lines of criticism of Lenin's take on national liberation, too? You're ridiculous.

And Remus, what political party are you a part of? When have you engaged in the class struggle? I have done nothing of this sort, I have not helped the proletarian movement revive one bit, and neither have you. All we have is theory, that's it right now. I will admit it, at the risk of sounding arrogant - yes my Marxism is much more mature, developed and sophisticated than yours, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind of that. And what's this of the Sorelian myth? The same one you, Takayuki, among other bordigists were quick to concur with? You can't call me a reformist, a Kautskyan, a DNZist, a Bernstein-esque socialist, or all this other shit, and then consistently recognize that I have read Sorel and that I am interested in the Sorelian social myth.

Remus sais "You're all the same!!!!!111 no differencesdf!!!!! any1 who does;t ascribe to bordigsitm is a bastard of the worker's movemnent! I decide who the degenerate is, me, da year long marxist remus!

In this sense, Lenin was also a bastard of the worker's movement, he broke with the conventional Marxism of the time in order to protect the legacy of Marxism.

Yeah Rafiq, neither you and I can bring back the class - but that's not because "we aren't Lenin"

I mean why the fuck would you even posit an argument here? If you agree that we have no impact on anything, why argue when you know perfectly well what I meant? Lenin was a skilled leader who was the result of an advanced and battle hardened worker's movement. So it is because none of us are a Lenin of sorts, there is no worker's movement.

I helped organize some people from my city into a political group devoted to the discussion and application of Marx, Engels and Lenin in the world today, in hopes of preserving the Invariant Program. I am sure that is more than you and your SPUSA have ever done.

Remus! Savior of Communism! He has helped organize some people from his city into a political group devoted to the discussion and application of Marx, Engels and Lenin in the world today, in hopes of preserving the invariant program. Honestly it's just as worthless as anything the SPUSA has ever done, but I'm curious to see how far this little political group of yours is going to get. If I think that the SPUSA is the solution to the problem and the harbinger of the revolution, than you are so delusioned as to think your little club is going to be some proletarian vanguard.

as your posts contains numerous irrelevancies that go on about nothing

The same posts you, and others have appreciated until when? What changed?

Are you fucking kidding me? Lenin has never stressed that the proletariat should 'allow capitalist development' to occur in order for the conditions for a wholly proletarian movement to develop. For fuck's sake, the October revolution is the complete rejection of such bullshit! Don't sit here and fucking act like the peasantry weren't the sole result of the complete shitstorm following the October revolution, besides of course the failure of the proletarian revolution to spread. Except I, even DNZ, have never posited that the "bourgeois state" can be used to "make socialism". THE WHOLE POINT of DNZ's little theory is to eradicate the bourgeois class while at the same time retaining class independence. And even then, this is not anything remotely exclusive or distincitve about Bernstein, Bernstein was distinguished by his "evolutionary socialism" which suggest that socialism would naturally evolve out of parliamentary reforms. So explain, Remus, fucking explain to me how that has any relevancy to the discussion at hand. Oh look at you, "in that sense" SHUT THE FUCK UP, there is no "sense" to that, Bernstein has nothing to fucking do with that.

What a waste of fucking time you are. All of your arguments rely on presumptions about my views that are wholly, absolutely and consistently lies.

All you revisionists, all you opportunists, all you bastard children of the workers movement are interconnected

And you're an authority to define who the "revisionists, opportunists and bastard children are?" YOU? The same meaningless slander could be applied to anyone, Lenin included. Was Lenin a revisionist? He was just as much a revisionist as Althusser was, re-approaching Marxism and applying it to his current conditions. Lenin revolutionized Marxism whilst the second international fiends retained the same constrianed understanding that logically played into reformism. But no one challenged traditional discourse as much as Bordiga, whose anti-democratic tirades, against the mass movement, can be called "bastard" if we want to be vicious and slanderous. After all, Bordiga's successor, Camatte, became a primitivist, if anything Bordigism is this obscure little creature, this mutation of Lenin's politics. But that's not what I hold, or what I have ever held. Using your logic, however, we can come to that conclusion.

Even then, even if we assume they are "opportunists" and so on, what an astronomically ignorant thing to say. NO they are not interconnected, kautsky has nothing to do with the bastard Mao, Tito has very little to do with Bernstien AT ALL. I don't think you know who the fuck Bernstein was, I don't even think you know anything about Bernstein at all. Also you make it as if every figure from the Second international was some kind of bastard reformist, like Kautsky. You forget that Lenin held Bebel in high regard until his death.

All you're good for is arguing with a straw man. That's how you get on, that's how you are able to reply to me. Fuck you.

So now that you've realized what an utter and complete dipshit you are, you're going to go on about something new, you want to open up a new discussion about the theory of alienation. You don't see the contradictions of your views, Remus. Alienation is a completely Hegelian theory, as was Marx's whole thesis on the essence of man. My problem with Alienation is not so much that I oppose it, but that it is separate from Marx's footing in the social sciences. It is Communist, alienation is an ideological theory, not a scientific one - you're missing that there are two uses of alienation concerning Marx - the first is the essence of Man, which was completely Hegelian, and the second was the materialist conception of alienation - found in Capital and grunduissie, which I wholly ascribe to. How could you oppose Hegel, if you claim you are a Marxist, and oppose Althusser's theory of the epistemological break? NO ONE was as anti-Hegelian as far as Marxism goes as Althusser. But you want to know what a complete and utter fucking moron you are, Remus?

My opposition to humanism comes from its religious view of humanity (as if they are above and beyond their material conditions), its absurd view of dialectical materialism, its libertarianism, and it's hegelianism

Jesus christ. Now I feel like giving up.

Everyone listen up - Remus actually believes that Humanism, an ideological trend that has it's origins in the Renaissance, is inhernetly libertarian, it presumes dialectical materialism, it is libertarian, and here's the best part: REMUS THINKS ALL FORMS OF HUMANISM ARE INHERENTLY HEGELIAN! WHAT A FUCKING JOKE! Would it surprise you if I told you that post ACTUALLY made me laugh? I actually DERIVE humor from this little snip - you actually fucking think humanism has anything to do with any of those things? Sure HEGEL was a humanist, sure there are libertarians who could be 'humanists' SURE, there are dialeticians, Trotskyists mostly, who are humanists at core. BUT DOES THAT MEAN HUMANISM, which is pervasive in all forms of bourgeois thought, presumes all of those things? NO! You DON'T UNDERSTAND LOGIC, REMUS! Grow the FUCK up. I would physically assault you for such nonsense if you were in my presence, gods, what a stupid fucking thing to say. This just goes to show the intricacies and contradictions of your skewed, absolutely ridiculous logic.

Yes, it makes you a reactionary, you can't oppose humanism and then claim young Marx and old Marx were one and the same, and still call yourself a Marxist. And if you oppose humanism for being unscientific and inconsistent with Marx's historical materialism, well, buddy, you've just stepped aboard the Althusser train. Unless of course there's something else, some other reason as to why you oppose Althusser... Let's review

First you claim you oppose him becasue he makes the distinction between young and old marx. You claim that there are no differences, that they are the same. You then say Althusser, unlike you, wasn't a Marxist. Okay.

Then you claim you oppose humanism - HOLD ON, doesn't that mean you're not the Marxist - but wait! If you ARE A MARXIST and oppose humanism, while presuming that Marx was consistently and always a humanist, that means you are REVISING Marxism and purging it of it's humanist tendencies (the same goes for Hegel). So what makes Althusser this bastard revisionist, and not you? Use your head.

You're right, I linked Left Wing childishness and the petty bourgeois mentality but only because Links claimed that "having a petty bourgeois mentality" is not possible and that it's just slander. I claimed that it is possible, and Lenin wrote about it. IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ICC. He then, respectfully, claimed that an appeal to authority is not grounds for truth, which I could not disagree with. NONE THE LESS - you "calling me out" for linking that was completely - just STUPID on your part, there's nothing else to call it. Just stupidity. You're a child, shut the fuck up, sit back and learn for a change.

You try to be edgy Remus because your so-called "revolutionary totalitarianism" IS NOT NORMALIZED, you WHOLLY regard it as "extreme" which is why you call it totalitarianism to begin with. The difference is that mine is completely honest, it comes from the head and heart, it is my standard for normality, you however think it's some kind of fucking joke to piss off liberals. That's the difference, Remus, that's why you're just some edgy fucking kid who will grow out of your "rebellious" phrase, perhaps not long after you adopt primitivism, or some other obscure postmodern bourgeois ideological trend.

[Rafiq]

What a dismissive little shit you are. "BLAH BLAH BLAH LALALALALLAA NOPE DIS HAZ TO FIT MY CATAGORIZATION OF U, I WIL NOT LISSEN MY MIND HAS BEEN MADE UP LALALALALA". As if you have any right to be dismissive.

[liberlict]

Who cares if people have a "natural instinct to stick to their own kind". This is obvious, because people who share genes in common have a natural affinity for each other. This is why families care about each other than strangers. But people have the ability to transcend their genes. The natural instinct is to survive, yet people commit suicide every day.

[Rafiq]

Some quotes by the anti-revisionist crusader Remus:

14 January

Ah yes sorels social myth. I've been looking for about a year for hours writings on this, you have a link? I agree ideology expresses some greater truth that just can't be pour into words.

22 January - The sophisticated, developed Bordigist doesn't know about mystical Communism

Can you elaborate what you mean when you say communism is mystic?

So mystic as in the sense that communism will be defended as if it was a religion? Mystic add if to say that the proletarian interests are moral? That kind of stuff?
Or mystic in the sense that the individual is destroyed all that remains is the collective (this is what I gleaned from an il partito article)

How about from Takayuki

September 2013

That's good Rafiq, proper teaching of the true mystical organic totalitarian communism. I like your style.

6 September

No, no, I agree fully with you and I share your position. I did not mean that in a mocking manner.

To them, my posts are incoherent, and make no sense:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...1&postcount=22
'Remus liked this post'

So whose inconsistent again?

Here's a post I made about Chavez: Obviously I am a supporter

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...89&postcount=4

A bordigist named Brutus thanked this. Does he support Chavez too, Remus?

[Remus Bleys]

Well, I just want to defend my statements here. I'm not going to deal with what I said I had my say on nor with something as idiotic as what you have just accused me of (I didn't say that this group I was forming was relevant nor that it would be a vanguard, I merely stated that this was a connection I had, if you want to act like what is done in real life, away from revleft, isn't important to this "discussion", then why bring it up?) as I don't think that only Bordiga was correct (not really sure where that was brought up, I have criticized Bordiga on this website before, in addition Camatte isn't really the logical conclusion, you can see many of Bordiga's appraisals of industry and that Communism is the son of Capitalism), and I never said that members of the Second International were all degeneracies. Why this is being used against me I don't know. Why you are going "hurr durr som ethin stoopid rhemus said" I don't know either. Does it make your case?
The revleft search function is of no use, but I distinctly remember a post you made claiming that Imperialism was a good read but no longer applicable - or something like that.
Finally, here's a good quote explaining what I meant in regards to National Liberation,
"It has not occurred to them that state capitalism would be a step forward as compared with the present state of affairs in our Soviet Republic. If in approximately six months’ time state capitalism became established in our Republic, this would be a great success and a sure guarantee that within a year socialism will have gained a permanently firm hold and will have become invincible in our country." This is from a work you should know (pb mentality), and there is also the "socialism is impossible without modern scale science and technology" (or something like that). The October Revolution was a rejection of bourgeois politics, but not capitalist development. That is what I mean in regards to national liberation, that the feudal elements need to be destroyed, and perhaps make alliances with bourgeois forces (February) but ultimately is under political control of the proletarian. Compare this to a nation "developed" by capital, that has already destroyed its "feudal bonds," in which the methods of a National-Liberation would be completely backwards.
And lol @ "your totalitarianism is edgy"

edit: lol when did I call Marx a Humanist?

[Remus Bleys]

Oh Jesus rafiq I was interested in your conception of "mysticism" and why you undertook Sorel's myth. Of course ideology grips the Masses and becomes a material force (young marx Oh noes!1111) that doesn't mean I agreed with the Sorelian conception - which doesn't mean I can't read on about it to see if there's anything of worth (which, in this case, the answer was no).
And the accusation of revleft drama, why?