1

RAFIQ

THE PROPHET HAS SPOKEN

Volume One

1st Edition

Hegel-Marx-Engels-Lenin-Kautsky-Dzerzhinsky-Althusser-Zizek-DNZ-Rafiq Thought

Publishers

Edited by Walter B. and L. A., Short Biographical Sketch provided by K. M. O. V.

2

[FONT="Courier New"] “We stand for organized terror - this should be frankly admitted. Terror is an absolute necessity during times of revolution. Our aim is to fight against the enemies of the Revolution and of the new order of life. ” ― Felix Dzerzhinsky [/FONT]

ةروثلل شيتفتلا مكاحم فقو نكمي ءيش ل

“I [have not had any articles published online], I don't think anyone would want to publish them anyway.”

CONTENTS

1 Short Biographical Sketch

- 6

 

2 Works

- 7

 

Re: The Natural Instinct to stick to your own kind.

 

8

Re: Whats a left-wing Anarchist without Communism?

 

29

Re: Is there any actual hope for Parliamentary politics?

 

30

Re: Has anyone heard of anti-fascist organization called Millennium?

77

Re: Soviet anti-relgious propoganda.

 

80

Re: Salem Witch Trials as "real" in 2013-2014 film and television

 

81

Re: tendency?

 

82

The Petty Bourgeois Ideologues

 

96

Re: the antisemitism of famous socialists

 

106

Re: Is this situation rape?

 

110

3

Re: My understanding of why drugs are illegal.

111

Re: Should Communism/Socialism Allow Religion?

112

Re: Communism impossible while the US exists?

115

Re: Why Ancient Wisdom Matters In the Modern World

119

Re: How to combat reactionary thought?

123

Re: Hi, I have a interesting ideology

124

Re: Do you believe in god(s)? Poll #5

136

Re: Gideon Levy: The world is sick of Israel and its insanities

138

Re: Opposing big business: an opportunist adaptation to petit-bourgeois consciousness

139

Re: Can someone explain the different types of socialism to me?

143

Re: Morals are inherently bourgeois?

145

Re: Game of Thrones

146

Re: question to the guys: Feminist or ally?

148

Re: How proletarian was the Chinese revolution?

149

Re: What is the point of competition?

151

Re: How would Communists go about clearing up their reputation?

153

Re: Fascist Government

154

Re: What Are You Watching III

155

Re: Classical Marxism today

156

Re: Dawn of the Planet of the Apes

164

Re: Britain - the Organized Ruling Class Peadophile Ring

165

Re: Today I Just Learned that Communism and Anarchism are Pointless Dreams

166

Re: Strange question re: 'erotic asphyxiation'

167

Re: PARIS: Jews flee as Jewish businesses are being smashed, burned and looted over Gaza

168

Re: Krav maga and systema

177

Re: Have I got movement for you!

178

Re: Feminism and Capitalism

179

Re: the tech utopia nobody wants: why the world nerds are creating will be awful

180

Re: Kierkegaard

182

Re: Defending Nihilism

185

Re: The Soviet Union Thread

187

Re: Beards, Bananas and...Bell-bottoms?

242

Re: Circumcision Discussion (split from FGM thread)

266

Re: To each according to his deed?

267

Re: Communism Today

268

Re: Male Monogamy?

269

Re: Why are certain specific patterns so common in the universe?

270

Re: In your view, what is the biggest challenge to the Revolutionary Left today?

271

Membership dues

274

Re: Arming the Kurds: Bad Idea?

288

Re: Dismissive term for anti-animal socialists needed

294

Re: Islamic State mass killing and enslaving Christians and Yezidis

296

Re: What is democracy?

297

Re: #WomenAgainstFeminism

298

Re: Advocating matriarchy?

302

Re: Objective Interest

303

Re: "Meet ISIS's worst nightmare"

304

Re: roarmag article on the new libertarian course of the PKK

309

Ideology and Death

310

Re: Theses on the Philosophy of History

314

Re: Do you hate Chuck E. Cheese? Here's the perfect game for you!

315

Re: Anarchism, Marxism and veganism

316

Re: How's the revolution coming? Am i late?

320

Re: The Pope calls a capitalism a "new tyranny".

321

4

Re: Dawkins and a "bizarre twitter storm"

 

322

Re: Hegelian Marxism?

 

324

Re: Boko Haram conquers towns for the Caliphate

 

381

Re: Pro-Russian rebels adopt Czarist Imperial Flag as National Flag

 

383

Re: Francis Fukuyama

 

387

Re: This....is not easy to watch. [CW - homophobic violence]

 

389

Re: Meaning of Life

 

395

Re: Well I admit im a douche or was.

 

396

Re: Cultural appropriation

 

400

Re: leaked un climate report: 75 percent of reserves must stay in ground

 

403

Re: Is Communism Essentially Dead?

 

404

Re: U.S. Hikes Fee To Renounce Citizenship By 422%

 

405

Re: International Volunteers in Ukraine

 

406

Re: On gays - "we in Crimea do not need such people" - de facto leader says

 

408

Re: Political Conversions?

 

410

Re: What defines reactionary/what is reactionary?

 

411

Re: "The American working class is the most reactionary working class in the world"

412

Re: What exactly is a proletarian?

 

413

Re: Dealing with high-school pressure to conform?

 

415

Re: Why is buddhism so popular?

 

417

Re: Restricted Ideologies and why?

 

421

Re: Isis jihadis shaped by Western philosophy

 

422

Re: Unity

 

424

Re: How many German woman were raped when the Soviets conquered Berlin?

 

430

Re: Obama Authorizes Air Strikes on "ISIS", and Inevitably Many Civilians

 

431

Re: What about the Working Class?

 

436

Re: Objectivist 'Utopia' Falls Apart Almost Immediately

449

 

Re: Hungary bids farewell to "racist and classist" Marx

 

450

Re: Possession in Communism

 

451

Re: Anarcho-Communism and Conflicts

 

452

Re: The Case for Materialism

 

453

Re: Let's talk about privilege theory

 

454

Re: Valid arguments against Marxism

 

459

Re: Which Religion do you follow II

 

464

Re: It Can't Be Refuted: ISIS Was Born Of U.S. Intervention In Iraq & Covert In Syria

468

Re: Cultural Marxism

 

471

Re: Hong Kong Protests

 

472

Re: the rise of data and the death of politics

 

474

Re: Violent Revolution: A Contradiction in Terms?

 

475

Re: Fear and the Struggle

 

479

Re: Tactics/Strategies/Arguments for Fighting ISLAMOPHOBIA??

 

480

Re: Reza Aslan responds to Bill Maher on CNN

 

482

Re: The Ends and the Means

 

509

Re: Can someone tell me what my tendency is?

 

511

Re: Good books on radical Islam?

 

512

Re: Does Gorbachev get too much flack?

 

513

Re: Problem of Tendency.

 

515

Re: Do you support US bombing in Syria?

 

518

Re: How to avoid a dictatorship

 

522

3 Correspondence

- 523

5

The Vegan Marxist

524

mykittyhasaboner

525

Adil3tr

526

Red Commissar

527

Die Neue Zeit

528

1. SHORT BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Rafiq was born as the amnesic reincarnation of Dzerzhinsky. That’s all you need to know about Rafiq’s past as an idealist. Rafiq’s first recorded involvement with The Young Materialists (In Correspondence, in response to a famed Young Materialist, The Vegan Marxist) was the rather humble message, “How are you doing comrade..”

And so began the actual Marxist tradition in the 21st century.

This first volume consists of the works of the “Late Late Late Late Neo Late Post Neo Late Rafiq”, who, despite his “old heart” condition, still manages to school

WORTHLESS IDIOTS WHO JUST DON’T FUCKING UNDERSTAND HIM.

-K. M. O. V.

6

2. Works

7

Re: The Natural Instinct to stick to your own kind.

There are no natural, or even 'culturally organic' predispositions towards nationalism. Nationalism is imposed, it is alien, it is a weapon of confusion against the natural predisposition towards proletarian consciousness.

-

Althusser strangled his wife. I'm no humanist but Althusser is seriously one of the most moronic, idiotic fools to ever exist who didn't understand marx one bit. Not to mention being a stalinist (not even that, but a revisionist stalinist!) but also popularized maoism

Yeah no bias for distorting marx there.... There is no break with marx, there is only development. The Marx who wrote Grundisse, German Ideology, the Manifesto, is the same as the man who wrote Capital or Critique of the Philosophy of the Right.

In sum: fuck althusser. Why anyone thinks the revisionist of a revisionist is a serious authority is beyond me.

Remus Bleys

Remus your ignorance is appalling, you really haven't the slightest fucking idea of what you're talking about. If your opposition to humanism is not concurrent with Althusser's, you are a reactionary. This kind of anti-humanism can only translate into one thing: Pre- humanism.

I just cannot even articulate how anyone could believe Althusser was "one of the most moronic, idiotic fools to ever exist" (At least he probably wasn't fucking redundant with his baseless slurs) even those who might disagree with him would never dare hold such reservations. Althusser was not particularly concerned with politics outside philosophy, he may have identified with maoism, but this is most likely due to the background from which he was derived, i.e. New Left France. Actually being a Maoist post 68, despite the fact that Maoism is garbage, can say a lot about you. It's really so silly how you attribute characterizations, and groupings exclusive to this website to others, as if Althusser made his internet tendency "Maoist". It's like some stupid game to you.

Part of development means breaking, part of Christianity developing meant breaking with the Church, part of bourgeois ideology developing meant breaking with religion, part of Marx's development meant breaking with Hegel's idealism, as well as breaking with humanism (though this is an argument for another thread, about whether he broke with humanism). The point is that breaks and developments - there is a false dichotomy you're trying to spew, and that, Remus, that's fucking beyond stupid. I mean it's so ridiculous, you're literally just fucking declaring things. Who the fuck are you, Remus, I mean can't I

8

just say "Marx who was a young Hegelian was the same as the man who wrote Capital", wouldn't that be just as insightful as the shit you're trying to say?

Althusser is by far the greatest proponent of Marx in this post 68 era. It is with Althusser's help that we bring Marxism into today's world, he championed it's legacy. And he's taken for granted, a great many of the reservations held by Marxists today, whether they know it or not were greatly influenced by Althusser and his analysis of the state and ideology, among many other things. Althusser has done more for our legacy than you ever will.

So really, fuck you, Remus. Maybe you'll grow out of this phrase, but honestly, this "edgy bordigist" facade doesn't suite you, it's childish and beyond irritating. It's so ironic that a so-called Bordigist would abandon any sort of Marxist discipline and uprightness, you're literally just spewing nonsense, as though your 'aggressive' tone supplements such utter and complete bullshit.

-

Without Althusser, we are lost, there is really not way we could understand the nature of the existing order today without Althusser, or at least the theories he brought forth.

Correction: Hold on, where the fuck did you get that Althusser was a Maoist? Nothing in his writings is remotely close to Maoism, nothing is remotely influenced by Mao's writings, or the writings of other Maoists. If we understand this, we can only come to the conclusion that Althusser must have identified as one, in order to call him one. So did he? He did not. -

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

9

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.

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. 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

10

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

11

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!)

12

Remus Bleys

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

Remus Bleys

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

13

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

14

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.

-

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

Rafiq

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,

15

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, 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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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"

Remus Bleys

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 Bleys

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

Remus Bleys

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,

21

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

Remus Bleys

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

22

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

Remus Bleys

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

23

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.

-

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.

-

Some quotes by the anti-revisionist crusader Remus:

24

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.

Remus Bleys

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)

Remus Bleys

How about from Takayuki

September 2013

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

Takayuki

6 September

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

Takayuki

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?

-

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

25

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.

Remus Bleys

What cack! So first I'm the reformist, but you're the one claiming that the allowance of capitalist development is the solution to the problem of proletarian dictatorship in the third world? I'M THE BERNSTEIN-SOCIALIST, BUT YOU"RE THE ONE CLAIMING THAT CAPITALIST DEVELOPMENT IS NECESSARY!?

Of COURSE it WAS necessary in Russia, but only as a result of the failure for the revolution to spread. PROLETARIAN DICTATORSHIP and the reinforcement of capitalist relations, capitalist development are INCOMPATIBLE and CANNOT coexist.

DNZ has, quite simply proposed that a proletarian alliance with the rural petite bourgeoisie, or the peasantry unified by strong executive power, would be in control of the state which could struggle against the bourgeois class and whatever potential counter-revolution for the building of socialism. There's a reason why users have accused him of "Stalinism" and so on. Even if this is not a solution, it is much more Communist than yours, which suggests CLASS COLLABORATION with the bourgeoisie. The February revolution was NOT an alliance with the bourgeois parties, for fuck's sake not even a year later the Bolsheviks abolished the provisional government.

Of course state-capitalist development was Lenin's only solution - that doesn't mean it's a DESIRABLE outcome, you do realize Lenin was not optimistic about the situation - the fact of the matter is that capitalist development is the signification of the revolution's FAILURE. Unless of course, you want to argue that the October revolution had not failed, and that the retention of the proletarian dictatorship was possible. The majority of the proletariat had perished in the civil war, it was up to the state to take the role of the bourgeoisie in assimilating the peasantry. Also, was Lenin really correct here? Most Left Communists would not agree, socialism was NOT established in the republic, the result was a catastrophe. Stalin was not this gross mutation of Lenin, he was a logical successor GIVEN the

26

circumstances. Had Lenin grown old, he would most likely not have been very different.

-

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).

Remus Bleys

No shut the fuck up, don't act like that wasn't completely and wholly different to how you approached me recently, with such venomous hostility. Myths are not the materialization of ideas, they are the expression of material interests in terms of ideas, no matter how irrational, and so on they are. THAT is the Marxist implication you can draw from Sorel's social myth - not to disregard there is something deeply problematic about Sorel as a whole, starting from his anti- materialism. Gramsci, whom you despise, further elaborated and touched upon this.

Re: Whats a left-wing Anarchist without

Communism?

The rejection of labeling themselves as communists is a matter of historical tradition, not ideology. It's comprable to Maoist parties being identified by the 'M- L' addition, I.e. Communist Party of Greece (ML). They're all Marxist leninists, but it's tradition.

27

Re: Is there any actual hope for

Parliamentary politics?

Without legitimacy there can be no dictatorship. When the fires of the revolution rage in the hearts of the damned, when the proletariat has torn down the idols of bourgeois mysticism through blood and sweat, there you will find the legitimacy of the proletarian dictatorship. The revolution will never be legitimized by the global capitalist order because the revolution itself is the armageddon of the global capitalist order - it will be legitimized in the eyes of even the most embedded in bourgeois ideology, it is a new universe that which no ideological power can triumph, or categorize into it's own ideological world. Following the Bolshevik revolution and it's failure, the most effective means of de-legitimization was antisemitism - a means of categorizing such an event within bourgeois ideological proximity (that there was an international jewish conspiracy, in which Communism was merely an instrument). And no wonder it held so much sway, liberalism had proved unable to define the October revolution on it's own terms.

When the workers across Russia were mobilized to fight under the red star, they did not do so out of conscious self interest or even force. They did so - they were willing to die for the universality erected by the October revolution. What many forget is that the revolution brought forth a new ideological system unseen before in the history of the workers movement as a sole result of the seizure of power, almost mythological. It is hard to notice - it was not long before it degenerated into the logic of capital, but it was there.

-

All hegemonic unions today have been absorbed and serve only to reproduce the

28

conditions of exploitation. Labor has been in retreat for quite some while.

-

To Takayuki:

Domination? The whole point of socialism and communism is to create a humane society to replace the mishap caused by capitalism, not to become capitalist by dominating people!

And when I say a government that cares about it's people, I mean it. Look to an event during the protests in Greece. When a old woman asked her neighbors to help her find her lost dog, the council decided to help her. Why? They didn't want to control anyone, they wanted to liberate people from their boring days of slaving away at some job. That is the future, a free society where people co-operate with each other and live freely, and control will not solve that problem. Socialisme ou Barbarie

The point of communism is not to milk the dried, poisoned teet of bourgeois intimate feelings of kindness, the point is not to gently caress the bastard offspring of capitalist relations. "Oh!" You'd say, "let's help out poor uncle Joe whose bakery is under attack!" And so on. Where does it end?

The point of communism is to violently instill a new morality, to unveil the falseness of the capitalist ideological universe, and to repress and dominate the class enemies. It isn't pretty, it isn't sweet and nice as though you're helping an old women across the street. It is the revolutionary locomotive blazing with fire through the streets indiscriminate if grandma is crossing or not.

-

Oh, I'm sorry that I give a damn about people and I don't see violence as an immediate answer to the problems that we face. If the goal of Marxism and Anarchism is to create a free, happy society, then we should make sure that those who want to live freely don't have chests filled with lead.

Socialisme ou Barbarie

The goal of Marxism was never to "create a new society" to begin with, none the less a "Happy" society. Marxism is the means by which we understand humans categorically as animals and their social (rather than biological, which was essentially what Darwin did) being. The most ardent defender of capitalist relations, an honest member of the bourgeoisie can be a Marxist, he can recognize the world for what it is and simply choose the side of his class.

Happiness is never the goal of any revolutionary. Happiness is to be content, happiness is weakness.

-

So when Marx wrote, "The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it," you think the "change" he is talking about isn't a transformation of society into a new (non-exploitative) type?

Five Year Plan

29

No, the change he is talking about has nothing to do with a 'new society' (Or more specifically, the 'creation' of one). The point is that legitimacy is gained in the process of attempting to change society, for Marx communism is not a state of affairs which is to be established. Communism is the active process by which the proletarian class struggles against the enemy, Communism is the ideology which smashes through the carcass of bourgeois thought. Marx's problem with philosophers is that while they might have 'understood' the nature of things, they did so comfortably within the confines set forth by those in power, set forth by the existing social order. It is not so much that they failed in their action, it is that they failed to challenge the existing order in the first place. Marx does not say we ought to consciously change society into something we find appealing or desirable. The very nature of our desires, the very nature of our appeals is shaped by our ideological presumptions, the same ones set forth by the existing order. It is no wonder bourgeois ideologues who 'want communism' do so for reasons only logical in the parameters of bourgeois ideology. Marx means in the process of fighting, in the process of struggle society changes. This is the difference, and it is crucial.

When those - dare I say utopians, those bourgeois ideologues who speak of 'creating a better, more humane society', they see the Communist movement in all its stormy revolutionary outbursts as nothing short of a tool to realize their utopian fantasies. While on the contrary, the struggle itself, the fight against those in power is a universe of its own for any radical. Understanding Communism as derived from premises now in existence, we logically understand that any talk of a new society is merely an ideological component of the struggle for the conquest of the state. Rather than the revolution being a tool to create a new society, the very notion of creating a new society is a tool of the revolution. The truth is that finding these utilitarian models to maximize efficiency, even dare I say to organize production consciously in a different way is a relatively trivial thing. This is not the goal, the changes brought forth from re-organization of relations to production are a result of changes in power.

-

So in other words Marxism as a body of thought is drawn from the real movement of workers to create a new society, and is in turn used to support that effort.

Five Year Plan

No, that's Communism as an ideology. Workers do not fight because they have

30

created an idea of a new society which they seek to at all costs pursue. This new society (or the notion of it) is derived from the struggle of workers to pursue their real, immediate material interests, starting from petty trade union struggles to the struggle for the conquest of the state (The Communist movement). The role of Marxism is a disciplined, scientific understanding of our social being, as well as to add a radical dimension to trade union consciousness that goes beyond simple material interests. The merger of Marxism and the worker's movement is the politicization of this movement, the discipline and adoption of a coherent and consistent ideological universe. Marxism, above all things is how we understand. And the Communism, the Communism from Muntzer, the Communism of revolutionary France, the Communism of the Bolsheviks is more like a possession of the mind and soul, Communism is the persistent irrational outbursts of the revolutionary spirit. We think of religious fundamentalists being "possessed" by their beliefs, as though an otherworldly set of ideas consume them. Nothing is more true for communism.

Perhaps my post needs to be a bit fucking longer, actually. No, it's not a simple point, it's not something that can be summed up in a few sentences. And your interpretation is complete proof of that.

-

Communist workers don't struggle to create a communist society? That's news to me.

Five Year Plan

I would imagine a great many things inherent to Marxism are news to you, seeing the sheer poverty of your understanding of it.

But no, there is no room for intellectual laziness here. They don't struggle to create a new society, they struggle because their immediate interests are opposed to that of their class enemy. Communist workers wish to impose a wholly new ideological universe upon the enemy, it is a class war inristic to capitalist relations. Rhetoric about creating a new society is nothing more than an ideological expression of this very real, and grounded struggle for power (NOT for a utopia, and you can call it whatever the fuck you want, in the end what you among other users speak of is nothing short of utopia).

But even then, the rhetoric we have seen from actually existing communist movements, from the Paris Commune to the Bolsheviks, is nowhere near the

31

infantile, delusional nonsense that users here like to tout. It is as though Communism is just another internet fetish, some kind of style or preference (I mean like at Reddit communism if you don't believe me). Again, all of this stems from your lack of understanding of so many things. Philistinism is so prevalent today among the Left especially, everything which is not simplistic is dismissed and distasted. The situation here is anything but simplistic.

-

Watch out, Rafiq. Your second-international social democracy is showing. Workers in general struggle because their immediate interests are opposed to those of their class enemy. Communist workers understand the link between those immediate struggles and the larger project to establish a society free from exploitation. As a result, they don't just struggle for day-to-day reforms. They couch the push reforms into their struggle for a new type of society. It is for this reason that it makes perfect sense to say that (some, revolutionary) workers are struggling for a society free from exploitation. Not all of them do, obviously. The goal of communist workers is to enlist the non-communist ones into the struggle, the real movement that Marx wrote about, which is going on right now.

Five Year Plan

Communism is nothing more than the more coherent, disciplined and specialized means by which workers fight for their immediate interests. When I speak of immediate interests, I do not mean higher wages, reforms, or a better quality of life. I speak of immediate interests as in their immediate conditions as proletarians, their immediate desire to conquer the state and destroy the class enemy. Their immediate interests, as opposed to some eternal 'idea of a new society' that is exclusive only to the internet, their immediate interests within the class struggle. THIS is what I mean. Their immediate interests are grounded in the existing society, the existing reality, which is in itself its own destruction. Your Communism and the Communism you speak of is wholly abstract, wholly petty bourgeois. As I said before, like the stoics of Rome who spoke of 'freedom 'and 'liberty' while utterly despising the wretched and filthy masses, their abstract notions of 'freedom' only served to reproduce a greater oppression. And thus, your abstract conception of Communism has nothing to do with the creation of a new society, it is nothing more than the means by which you attempt to legitimize the existing order. You fear a Communism with a modern context, because you are a petty bourgeois ideologue.

Workers do not struggle for a new society, they struggle for power. And all talk of a new society is not the manifestation of their 'reformist' prerogatives, but their struggle for power. Communism is an ideology among many ideologies, but what distinguishes it is what it really means, not what it claims to mean.

32

What you call "rhetoric about creating a new society" is nothing more than than expression of a scientific understanding of the capital-labor relationship that is responsible for creating all immediate struggles for reforms. It seems you have a fear of people talking about revolution and socialism and a new society. I wonder if this has anything to do with your petty-bourgeois fear that workers, upon hearing such arguments and learning from them in struggle, might actually create that society. I'll leave that for others to decide.

Five Year Plan

And now you're running wild with your misconceived presumptions, how the fuck do I argue with someone arguing with a straw man? Rhetoric about creating a new society is not the result of any scientific understanding alone, you cannot be outside ideology and the merger of the worker's movement with Marxism (BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT inherently one and the same) entails a scientific recognition of existing conditions as well as the irrational (irrational by present standards of reason), hell bent and eternal struggle for Communism. It is the unity of Marxist discipline with the Communist spirit. Do you forget that the Communist movement existed long before Marx?

But that's not even what I'm talking about. I'm talking about:

But even then, the rhetoric we have seen from actually existing communist movements, from the Paris Commune to the Bolsheviks, is nowhere near the infantile, delusional nonsense that users here like to tout. It is as though Communism is just another internet fetish, some kind of style or preference (I mean like at Reddit communism if you don't believe me).

Rafiq

Don't you dare claim that these petty bourgeois students and their utopian pipedreams is anything resemblent of 'workers talking about socialism and revolution'. I'm not going to stand for some Trotskyist shitbird come and tell me I 'fear revolution'. Fuck you, you petty bourgeois swine. You don't know anything about my psyche, you don't know anything about my Marxism or Marxism in general because it is beyond the constrains of your petty bourgeois, abstract understanding of the existing order.

What cack! He speaks of me 'fearing' revolution. Truly, the real cowards who fear revolution are those who wish to obfuscate socialism as some kind of abstract utopia which is to be established, truly only those who fear a proletarian dictatorship and the stormy alterations of revolution are the ones who wish to divorce Communism from existing conditions, whose Communism exists from past struggles, whose Communism they know damned well will never reach the land of the living. Only those who speak of socialism as some kind of preference, rather than a real movement are those

33

that fear the fires of the revolution. You fear, above all things a New Communism that poses a real threat to the existing order.

Yo, Rafiq. You're full of shit. Marx talks about a "new society" and "communist society" in some fairly important works. I mean, shit son, just read critique of the gotha programme. Marx talking about communist SOCIETY.. Ohhh noooooo.

"The emancipation of the oppressed class thus implies necessarily the creation of a new society." K. Marx, PoP.

Brotto Rühle

First of all shut the fuck up, I'm not your bro, I'm not your friend, this isn't a fucking casual conversation, speak clearly or get the fuck out you degenerate piece of shit.

No one denys Marx talks of a new society (GOD you all just don't get it, do you? Hint - A doesn't always equal A in different contexts!), the proletarian dictatorship and the conquest of power, of course that entails the creation of a new society! But for Marx, the point is that it is the struggle for emancipation, for power that is the real struggle, that is the struggle with a modern context. Worker's don't fight directly for this new society that have no idea will look like, they fight for power and the nature of hteir fight is derived from premises now in existence. Like I said, I was talking about this anyway:

But even then, the rhetoric we have seen from actually existing communist movements, from the Paris Commune to the Bolsheviks, is nowhere near the infantile, delusional nonsense that users here like to tout. It is as though Communism is just another internet fetish, some kind of style or preference (I mean like at Reddit communism if you don't believe me).

Rafiq

Don't you dare associate Marx with such nonsense, as though Marx would have been on reddit talking with all the students about how cool communism is going to be. Shut the fuck up and get out Rae, you've been discredited once, do yourself a favor and don't do it again.

-

I'm not going to waste time having a semantics argument with you, the dichotomy I was making was immediate, real interests vs. abstract utopia. If you do not believe that a proletarian dictatorship is capable of being a real, immediate interest, then you are not a Communist anyway. The proletarian dictatorship will not be realized overnight, the revolution will not happen in a day. Revolutionary consciousness, whether Trotskyist cults agitate them or not, will develop through the coarse of real struggles with the ruling class. Only in the

34

process of this struggle does the proletariat speak of a 'new society', just as the romantic bourgeoisie spoke of a new society of civic virtue, and so on. Of coarse this does not mean revolutionary consciousness develops spontaneously, but the merger of Marxism and the proletarian movement, as Marx knew very well, can only arise with the spontaneous development of trade-union consciousness. We can never truly have a real, objective "vision" of this new society because such a society can only arise after the seizure of power, i.e. in circumstances and conditions that simply are not present, the revolution is not about to happen, revolutionary consciousness is not nearly built upon, no one can speculate about what this new society would ever possibly look like today and any talk of one is just nonsense.

Honestly, you didn't even know what I was talking about anyway (that is, your internet communism). You keep ignoring the most important segments of my post, and it's as though I have to rehash the same shit, only to have you most likely ignore it again. Five Year Plan, I'm sorry but you really shouldn't be arguing with me if you can't even grasp my own arguments. Why can't you just admit you were wrong and move on? Why do you so tirelessly look for these semantic openings to new straw man arguments? I'm sure it would make you feel really good if I truly was arguing for gradual reforms, if my alleged "social democratic politics" were showing, but they don't even exist, you were wrong, now move on.

Who is speaking of an "eternal idea of a new society"? We're talking about the Marxian vision of communism, which didn't exist until Marx wrote about it in response to the real movement of workers struggling against capitalism in the 19th century. Unless you think humankind developed from Marx's pen two hundred years ago, which would actually be consistent with all the other crazy ideas you spew on this forum, visions originating in the 19th century aren't "eternal." Five Year Plan

Communism as a movement as well as the Communist idea existed before Marx, I know you don't know much about either of those things but it's important to know before you even further de-legitimize yourself. And I'm not just talking about Utopianism, there was a real Communist movement of which Marx did not create or found. But you're right, any speculation Marx had made about this 'new society' derived from the conditions of 19th century capitalism, and more importantly the conditions of the revolutionary proletariat movement of which he did not himself create. Marx was analyzing the revolutionary movement (which he was A PART OF) and from such a movement was he able to speculate upon what a proletarian dictatorship would look like. I mean for fuck's sake, the Paris Commune had very

35

little to do with Marx. The difference of course today is that there does not exist such a movement, the embryo of any new society cannot be found anywhere, it is thus absurd to speak of being a Communist because "you want a better society". Of course for a delusional Trotskyist, I am sure there are plenty of irrelevant and worthless organizations which you consider a real vehicle of the class struggle, small sects you consider the locomotive of the revolution. I'm sure such feelings make you feel safe and comfortable, as deep down you probably know they're false. A real Communist movement, on the other hand, and the prospect of revolution in the 21st century could only ever terrify you.

But let's say for the sake of argument that overthrowing the bourgeois state is immediately realizable because we're in a revolutionary situation, and it therefore makes sense to speak of proletarian revolution as an "immediate interest" and "immediate demand." What does this say about your aversion to "visions of a new society"? How will workers be overthrowing the state? With their minds wiped blank, and no idea circulating about what kind of society they hope to establish to guide their immediate action of overthrowing the state? Won't the visions they have, the plans in their heads, constitute "visions of a new society?" And aren't those visions integral to the movement? And can't those visions be spoken about in abstraction, as a society free from class exploitation and institutionalized coercion emerging from control over the means of production?

Five Year Plan

Five Year Plan, when I say you don't understand my argument, I'm not calling you stupid, and i'm not insulting you. I'm saying you genuinely don't understand. Why? My point is not that workers will never have an idea of a new society in their heads. My point is that workers do not struggle (primarily) to realize this idea, I said workers do not struggle because they want a new society, they struggle not for your abstract utopia, but as a result of existing conditions. And I know you believe otherwise, because you're a Trotskyist, probably in some small Trotskyist sect thinking that your ideas (which have no context today) are going to somehow immediately be adopted by the proletariat. You struggle, on one hand, to realize your clever and brilliant ideas, the proletariat on the other hand struggles to achieve its ends. The revolution does not occur, as though the revolutionary proletariat were some obscene UFO cult, the idea of Communism cannot be some imposition on this sea of infinite ideas, rather the idea of Communism can only derive (or I should say, have context) from the real movement of the conscious proletariat. Marxism does not come in order to plant the idea of Communism in the heads of the workers (such an idea already follows in the process of their struggle), Marxism is a means of coherent, consistent revolutionary discipline, a means of understanding their present conditions in totality, it is the barrier against the spontaneous development of reactionary ideas (like nationalism) and the

36

political sophistication of the revolutionary movement. On its own the proletarian movement can spiral into something entirely different in the blink of an eye if it does not have solid direction. Five Year Plan, show me a single argument that you have made that was not a straw-man. You're arguing with a ghost of your own creation.

In other words, all your bullshit objections to "visions of a new society" rests on this highly economistic and anti- humanist notion of workers being pawns of structural forces over which you assign living, breathing hmans no role in creating, shaping, or transforming. The only "agents" in your own vision of revolution (yes, ironically, you do have a vision, too, albeit a ridiculous one) are "interests," and that's it. In bouts of spontaneism, workers magically channel these interests in revolutionary acts, unaware of the place those interests are leading them.

All of this is highly ironic, since your milieu on this forum love to accuse Trotskyists and the transitional method specifically of "economism."

Five Year Plan

Don't you see that before I even read this little snip from your post, I already knew you were going to accuse me of spontaneism and economism? If you're that predictable, maybe you should re-approach your thought process as a whole, maybe you should think about my level of understanding of your arguments compared to your level of understanding of mine. You're only capable of straw- man, Five Year Plan, you take segments of my post you have absolutely no idea of, and you then accuse me of nonesense, and based on that false presumption you run wild with it, whether you accusing me of "economism" or whether you are saying my "Second international politics are showing". This is the second time you were completely, wholly and dead wrong, Five Year Plan if I was actually in your position, in all honestly, I would admit to my faults. Just come forward and admit you were wrong, admit you were unable to understand what I was talking about. There's nothing wrong with not knowing, but there's something wrong with thinking you do when you don't.

(Sorry but 'workers being pawns of structural forces' made me laugh, what does that even mean? That doesn't mean anything, you literally not only have no idea of what I'm talking about, you also have no idea of what structuralists or economic determinists are talking about either. Do you know what structural forces are?). Revolutionary consciousness does not arise spontaneously, but trade-union consciousness does. The skeleton of proletarian struggle, which is most usually present (and was only almost recently present, since the collapse of the Left), must be present in order for those specialized proletarians of revolutionary

37

consciousness (or even, as Lenin had said, the bourgeois intelligentsia), to instill in the movement a political character, a revolutionary political character. Real direction. But this isn't the same as some fetishist, some kid who likes Communism as 'preference' or someone who claims to "be a Communist because the society sounds feasible". Workers do not struggle for such a society, they struggle to achieve their own ends. Evidently, your understanding of what a society will look like after capitalism (an abstract fantasy) does not coincide with their interests as a class. You completely ignore Marx and Engel's understanding of Utopinianism, Five Year Plan. You might cosmetically agree with them, you might change your wording and so on, but they spoke exactly about the kinds of people, like yourself and your ridiculous positions.

What the fuck is this supposed to mean? You are either a troll or seriously delusional.

Five Year Plan

This might be the 100th time I've delved into this, you're a petty bourgeois ideologue in that your Communism is nothing short of an 'intellectual' utopian fetish, it is derived from not the land of the living but previous movements which no longer exist, previous contexts which are not present. In recognizing that your Communism has no place in the world, you take advantage of this and Communism becomes not a manifestation of proletarian interests, but a color, a costume that veils your petty bourgeois character. You claim to oppose the existing order not from the existing conditions of politics and even social relations, but from previous conditions. It's almost like how the American Tea Party uses slogans and rhetoric from late 18th century American politics, though that's not the best example (for a lot of problematic reasons).

-

You're doing exactly what Nietzsche did when he attacked the Enlightenment thinkers--unmask the power relations behind their claims to objective truth and reduce it as such.

MEGAMANTROTSKY

Not necessarily Nietzsche, this is an understanding of ideology. Do you think it is possible to be outside of ideology? The answer is no, and for that reason we must recognize ideology does not always coincide with objective reality, it thus yes, veils a real class interest, class relations which are the only meaningful power- relations existent. It's so cute how all the Trotskyists flock to here like pigeons.

If the goal of any new society is not happiness, itself a function of the form of society, of generalised living standards [themselves derivatives of various other factors such as participation in society, various freedoms, liberties and rights etc.], then it's pretty bogus and not really worthy of consideration IMO. At least I don't really want to follow an ideology that so easily discards the idea of 'happiness' as some sort of potential end goal.

38

Vladimir Innit Lenin

Not necessarily, I think. It might be just a restatement of that old belief that folks wouldn't struggle for a new kind of society if they're relatively content. Therefore proles must be miserable and destitute.

LinksRadikal

It's even more dangerous in that context, because it becomes embedded in the psyche that happiness, contentment etc. are not conducive to 'our' political goals. I think that's a pretty dangerous route to go down, given the complicated nature of a notion like 'happiness'.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

You're both very wrong. Happiness is a personal matter and can never be politicized. When I speak of happiness, I speak of happiness in terms of happiness being a life goal, which for any revolutionary it should not and can not. A revolutionary struggles for the revolution indiscriminate of his own happiness. Name me a revolutionary who was ever truly happy. To politicize or prioritize your happiness is to be content, but that does not mean our goal is to create conditions of "misery" for the proletariat. The point is that our revolutionary politics must go beyond the direct and animalistic feelings of misery/happiness. Do you think high living standards lead to happiness? They don't, life in the end is quite a pile of shit, the point is that we wish to create the conditions and space where such petty concepts can be dwindled upon in the first place. But no, as an end goal, happiness has nothing to do with the revolution, it is possible to be 'happy' within the miserable conditions of capitalism, there are plenty of happy spiritualists, we can trick and manipulate our minds into being 'happy'. I go as far as saying that even without alleviating the social ills of the proletariat, it is possible to have a 'happy society', a 'content' society. We must not be concerned with our own happiness as far as the struggle for emancipation goes, and yes even if it means our political goals do not coincide with our own happiness. A happy proletariat can still be an exploited proletariat, a happiness and oppression are not necessarily opposed. To derive happiness from existing circumstances which are oppressive, which is wholly possible indiscriminate of class, is the personal legitimization of such circumstances. A slave, not caring for the prospect of emancipation can happily go on serving his master so long as he recognizes his existing condition as a given. Conversely, a population of miserable and wretched people never equates to revolutionary consciousness. A great majority of those living in ghettos are miserable, are not 'happy' and yet are not the least bit inclined for insurrection. The point is that such dichotomy has no place in our struggle, the struggle for communism goes beyond our present standards of not only reason, but humanity while knowing full well of our imperfection, of our constrains and limits, we can

39

only know the wholeness and perfection of any revolutionary struggle, we can only strive for Communism and the revolution.

And look how Vlad, like some kind of pompous liberal technocrat speaks of "dangerous". Good, a revolution is a very dangerous thing, Communism is an incredibly dangerous thing. If you fear danger, than you should re-approach your identification with Communism in the first place.

-

I mean I cannot even begin to dwell upon how cult-like, how ridiculous and how obscene talk of creating a 'happy society' is. We are not here to find salvation, we are not here to struggle amidst a sea of bloodshed and hardship by deceiving anyone into thinking they're going to have 72 virgins waiting for them in the end. We struggle to the very, bitter end, unapologetically for power.

Oh, but notice everyone how Five Year Plan can only address my posts out of context. The next post he makes will ignore all the crucial aspects of my argument, he'll respond to a mere segment out of context and claim "So you're saying...". No, that's not what I'm saying, of course though if he addressed the entire post, he wouldn't be able to make the arguments he does... Perhaps he wouldn't be able to make any arguments at all.

-

Rafiq, a conversation requires that one's interlocutor be willing to answer questions. You dodged mine, so I will repeat them: How will workers be overthrowing the state? With their minds wiped blank, and no idea circulating about what kind of society they hope to establish to guide their immediate action of overthrowing the state? Won't the visions they have, the plans in their heads, constitute "visions of a new society?" And aren't those visions integral to the movement? And can't those visions be spoken about in abstraction, as a society free from class exploitation and institutionalized coercion emerging from control over the means of production?

You can ramble on and on about how I don't understand what you're saying, but if you don't answer these questions, there's really not much remaining for either of us to say.

Five Year Plan

Such a quetion derives only from your straw man argument. I claimed, specifically that

Why? My point is not that workers will never have an idea of a new society in their heads. My point is that workers do not struggle (primarily) to realize this idea, I said workers do not struggle because they want a new society, they struggle not for your abstract utopia, but as a result of existing conditions.

Rafiq

The difference of course today is that there does not exist such a movement, the embryo of any new society cannot be found anywhere, it is thus absurd to speak of being a Communist because "you want a better society".

40

Rafiq

So my point is that yes if a proletarian revolution was imminent, then some idea of what comes after of coarse is logical. That is a given. My point is that the proletariat does not struggle because they want to realize some idea of a new society, the idea of a new society comes as a result of their struggle against the class enemy. They struggle to realize their interests. For example if someone like you were to talk of a new society, it is Utopianism, there is absolutely no context for one. I shouldn't have to say that though, because it was all in my post. Maybe if you actually read the entire post, instead of dismissing it as rambling, you'd understand that. What's your next move? You're going to accuse me of spontaneism, even though anyone who read my post wouldn't. I can't believe how predictable you are. Address my points Five, don't just reply to this little segment, address my post, everything is in there. And no, such a society cannot be thought of in abstraction because the advanced revolutionary proletarian movement in itself is the embryo of such a society, there is no abstraction there - when the prospect of proletarian dictatorship is feasible, there can be no abstraction. But is this what Marx did? In the Communist manifesto, what were his ten planks? They were what to do once the proletariat took power, as a Communist revolution seemed very feasible, very imminent. Were they some kind of picture of a new society? No, they were immediate goals.

So if a proletarian dictatorship is imminent, if a revolution is imminent, we would not loll upon some 'new society' but would establish something like the ten planks, Embedded in revolutionary consciousness is the new society itself. The point is not that we impose this idea upon society, the point is that the bourgeois dictatorship is the real imposition, we know precisely what to abolish, we fight against what exists now. Saint Just said every king was a usurper, THIS is the logic we abide by, we do not 'impose' this fantasy on reality, rather we claim reality for our own, we change reality. In struggling with the bourgeoisie, the proletariat already knows what it wants. Before the bolshevik revolution the proletariat had been mobilised en masse by a strong party and were embedded with revolutionary consciousness, within their existing conditions they knew what was to be done, whole segments of the industiral proletariat, virtually all of them were ready to spill their blood in the acquisition of power. That's different from some kid on reddit, or Five Year Plan talking about creating a new happy society, that's different form someone

41

professing their "Marxism" because they want a new, better society. As I said before:

Marxism does not come in order to plant the idea of Communism in the heads of the workers (such an idea already follows in the process of their struggle), Marxism is a means of coherent, consistent revolutionary discipline, a means of understanding their present conditions in totality, it is the barrier against the spontaneous development of reactionary ideas (like nationalism) and the political sophistication of the revolutionary movement. On its own the proletarian movement can spiral into something entirely different in the blink of an eye if it does not have solid direction Rafiq

Of course you're only going to take a lot of my post out of context, of coarse you won't address any of this in a meaningful way. You'll quote a snip, say "So you're saying..." and run wild with your nonsense. Go ahead, you're so predictable at this point it's a given.

-

Why are you against utopian thought? You practically write novels of grab-bag metaphors and other such stupidities in your usual responses, yet you can't answer a very simple question?

MEGAMANTROTSKY

Because I shouldn't have to fucking tell you why I oppose utopian thought! Because It's a given, I'm a Marxist, I oppose it not only for the same reason that any other Marxist does, I oppose utopianism because it is worthless, I oppose utopianism because it only exists to abstractly simulate a society based on the presumptions of the existing order and hegemonic ideology, and claim to be something new. Utopianism reproduces the existing order, solely because it is a form of bourgeois ideological masturbation, like a movie, like a piece of bourgeois literature. Utopianism of course is inherently anti-scientific and wholly idealist, wholly ridiculous, it's childish. Why should I even have to say any of this?

WHY DO YOU OPPOSE RELIGION? WHY DO YOU OPPOSE UFO CULTS? what the FUCK is the difference as far as the quality of the question goes?

Clearly, Megaman, if you don't attribute ideology to some amorphous trans-historical will to power, you must think that you can exist outside of ideology! Profound!

Five Year Plan

You speak sarcastically, but who are you to speak sarcastically? You don't even know what I'm talking about! When have I claimed that the proletariat's will to power was "trans-historical"? When did I claim I even adhered to Nietzche's understanding of the will to power/ Nietzche in many respects could be understood in incredibly reactionary terms, this is not what I am getting at. The desire for power is a very real thing, the whole of class struggle is the struggle for power. What other means can classes realize their interests if not for the acquisition of

42

power? Social development aside, if there is no class based will to power why did the bourgeoisie find it necessary to take control of the state? This is ALL the more relevant for the proletariat, who cannot create the social foundations of a new society within capitalism! Whose only means of pursuing their interests is political struggle and the conquest of the state! No one claims this is necessarily trans-historical. YOU CANNOT be outside of ideology, I do not claim to be, but we can understand the NATURE of ideology.

-

If you can't think of a socialist society in abstraction, then how do you try to persuade other workers to fight for socialism?

Five Year Plan

Socialism is a movement, an ideology we do not "persuade" workers to join in on trying to realize your stupid fantasies, all Marxists including Marx himself recognize that workers do not struggle to realize our intellectual brilliance, rather we give them the necessary direction in the realization of their class interests. Just because revolutionary consciousness does not develop spontaneously DOES NOT MEAN it must be 'imposed' on the proletariat like some silly religion. The presuppostion of the class struggle itself (WHICH IS NOT the result of the will of Marxists) is where the Marxists have a place in the struggle, the class struggle MUST EXIST in whatever pathetic, petty form, in order for revolutionary consciousness to arise. This however has nothing to do with convincing workers that your abstract society is better than capitalism. Workers, struggling recognize as a given that there is something wrong with our society, it is the struggle for state power that is in the end the ONLY solution for them.

So workers won't have a vision of a new society, but "the new society itself" is "embedded in revolutionary consciousness"? Who possesses this "revolutionary consciousness" that contains "the new society itself"? Obviously not workers, in your vision, since you refuse to concede that socialist workers struggling for socialist revolution have a vision for a new society.

Five Year Plan

We are speaking of the revolutionary movement that would have to have already existed for this 'new society' to be spoken of. The revolutionary movement does not exist because they 'want a new society' in the first place, Five Year Plan. Of course if we presume your false presumptions are correct, then your argument holds ground.

As I said, pure spontaneism. No need to persuade the non-revolutionary workers to overthrow the state: they already know they want to overthrow the state.

I said

In struggling with the bourgeoisie, the proletariat already knows what it wants

43

If the proletariat struggles against the bourgeoisie, which is something that had occurred before Marx, they already know what they want, or should I say, what they DON'T want. The goals of the revolution occur in the process of struggle itself. THIS IS NOT spontaneism because the bourgeois intelligentsia, or the specialized intelligentsia among the proletariat must... WHAT THE FUCK? Wait, I already said all of this! I literally fucking said this!

Marxism does not come in order to plant the idea of Communism in the heads of the workers (such an idea already follows in the process of their struggle), Marxism is a means of coherent, consistent revolutionary discipline, a means of understanding their present conditions in totality, it is the barrier against the spontaneous development of reactionary ideas (like nationalism) and the political sophistication of the revolutionary movement. On its own the proletarian movement can spiral into something entirely different in the blink of an eye if it does not have solid direction.

Only in the process of this struggle does the proletariat speak of a 'new society', just as the romantic bourgeoisie spoke of a new society of civic virtue, and so on. Of coarse this does not mean revolutionary consciousness develops spontaneously, but the merger of Marxism and the proletarian movement, as Marx knew very well, can only arise with the spontaneous development of trade-union consciousness

Revolutionary consciousness does not arise spontaneously, but trade-union consciousness does. The skeleton of proletarian struggle, which is most usually present (and was only almost recently present, since the collapse of the Left), must be present in order for those specialized proletarians of revolutionary consciousness (or even, as Lenin had said, the bourgeois intelligentsia), to instill in the movement a political character, a revolutionary political character. Real direction. But this isn't the same as some fetishist, some kid who likes Communism as 'preference' or someone who claims to "be a Communist because the society sounds feasible"

Rafiq

This is something Lenin understood well when he spoke of the spontaneous development of trade-union consciousness! The point however is that REVOLUTIONARY consciousness is not utopianism, rather it is radical-political sophistication, it is the embryo of the proletarian dictatorship to follow the revolution.

Five Year Plan accuses me of spontaneism, as though he can ignore my previous post, as though it never happened. He wants to bury it in this obscure shitfest of a thread, he would not DARE directly reply to these little snips, and why? Because he cannot, he can only accuse me of 'poetry' and 'mysticism'. He simply cannot confront my posts for what they are, he must fit them within his own silly Trotskyist paradigm. http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...6&postcount=82

Of course to you there is no such thing as a real struggle or real movement. To you, it's like a single-issue campaign to realize your abstract fantasies. Marx spoke DIRECTLY about this, about this kind of mentality.

44

Oh, and does anyone think I'm wrong about Five Year Plan, still?

Of course you're only going to take a lot of my post out of context, of coarse you won't address any of this in a meaningful way. You'll quote a snip, say "So you're saying..." and run wild with your nonsense. Go ahead, you're so predictable at this point it's a given.

Oh, but notice everyone how Five Year Plan can only address my posts out of context. The next post he makes will ignore all the crucial aspects of my argument, he'll respond to a mere segment out of context and claim "So you're saying...". No, that's not what I'm saying, of course though if he addressed the entire post, he wouldn't be able to make the arguments he does... Perhaps he wouldn't be able to make any arguments at all.

I shouldn't have to say that though, because it was all in my post. Maybe if you actually read the entire post, instead of dismissing it as rambling, you'd understand that. What's your next move? You're going to accuse me of spontaneism, even though anyone who read my post wouldn't. I can't believe how predictable you are. Address my points Five, don't just reply to this little segment, address my post,

Rafiq

-

Five Year Plan's "socialism" is wholly and completely divorced from the proletarian movement historically. He is nothing short of a petty bourgeois ideologue and a Utopian, he presumes his understanding of socialism is correct, and then attacks me as though is presumptions are a breath of fresh air.

-

And how do we (revolutionaries) give them (the non-revolutionary workers) the necessary direction? I say that it is by presenting arguments about how their antagonism to capital points to the need to create a new society by overthrowing capitalism and its state. How do you "give them the necessary direction" without engaging their ideas, their perceptions, their visions?

Five Year Plan

Direction comes from coherent revolutionary discipline, a consistent ideological universe and the adoption of theoretical, political sophistication into the mass movement. That's quite different from advertising your remedy to capitalism, a 'new society' which is, whatever you like to write it off as, wholly alien and without context. Revolutionary fervor is not synonomous with the lust for a 'new society', one could easily recognize that such utopian abstractions are nothing short of the ideological manifestation of presumptions of the EXISTING order and ruling ideology, which say nothing about a potential new society, but everything about our existing society. You seem to think that workers struggle and mobilize in the first place because they buy into such nonsense, while the truth is infinitely more complicated. The idea of a new society, is derived from the struggle itself. The struggle which presently does not exist (your assertion that there is an actual revolutionary movement in the U.S. is evidence of your delusions).

A movement becomes revolutionary because people involved in them have decided to carry out a revolution. In the

45

process of making that decision, they entertain their options, they deliberate, and are ultimately persuaded that one particular vision of how they want reality to be is more appealing than the others. Guess what that means? They struggle for the new society, the society that exists after a qualitative break in power relations, because they have a vision of that society and think it's better than the alternative visions.

Five Year Plan

No, a movement becomes revolutionary when the struggle itself reaches a certain climax -not simply because people 'decide' anything, that begs the question - what prompts them to decide? It's very simple. The belief in another society, and another social order does not come out of its rationality or feasability. Rather it is derived from the egalitarian spirit itself, proletarian ideology, it is derived from the conditions of the movement itself. It is not telling of what really this new society would look like, but the ideological nature of the revolutionary movement (Not in the sense of 'is it fascist, is it liberal', but the fundamental nature of the struggle and the ideas that sustain this struggle). Petty bourgeois intellectuals see the stormy alterations of the revolutionary movement and the struggle as an ugly means to a pretty ends. Rather, the movement itself is the real ends in that the logical conclusion of the seizure of power is an act inherent to the struggle itself, not inherent to those speculating or sympathizing with it. This was Trotsky's greatest crime - he was a sympathizer, and apologist.

-

My post is there, anyone can read it, it's fine if you take things out of context and pretend to formulate an actual argument to the point of the whole post, but you're wrong.

You claim 'this sais absolutely nothing' but overlook

Revolutionary fervor is not synonomous with the lust for a 'new society', one could easily recognize that such utopian abstractions are nothing short of the ideological manifestation of presumptions of the EXISTING order and ruling ideology, which say nothing about a potential new society, but everything about our existing society. You seem to think that workers struggle and mobilize in the first place because they buy into such nonsense, while the truth is infinitely more complicated. The idea of a new society, is derived from the struggle itself. The struggle which presently does not exist (your assertion that there is an actual revolutionary movement in the U.S. is evidence of your delusions). Rafiq

You just don't get it. The point wasn't that 'egilitarian spirit' was a means of convincing anyone, the point was that there is no need for such convincing. Long before Marx the egilitarian spirit was inherent to the proletarian movement. It is not a matter of convincing, but providing direction. It's not a matter of compelling arguments. You don't understand the notion of collective action, you don't understand how humans behave really. It's not a matter of convincing individuals, real movements, despite being composed of individuals are capable of forming a

46

character of their own. Hell this is the story of humanity: As individuals we are worthless, our power comes from that we are social animals.

You think the phrase 'egilitarian spirit' sounds funny, and your run wild with your nonsense and accuse me of not elaborating or making a sufficient argument. Maybe if you read the rest of the sentence

it is derived from the conditions of the movement itself. It is not telling of what really this new society would look like, but the ideological nature of the revolutionary movement (Not in the sense of 'is it fascist, is it liberal', but the fundamental nature of the struggle and the ideas that sustain this struggle)

Rafiq

Such an argument couldn't be made.

I think you might be trolling, but if anyone's interested in this discussion, they can form their own conclusions as to whether Five Year Plan is being honest in his arguments.

-

You still don't explain how non-revolutionary workers become revolutionary. How does it happen?

Five Year Plan

Do you actually think class based movements arise because they are 'convinced' by brilliant thinkers? Because they 'buy into' our brilliant arguments? Are you a child?

-

I am a fair person, and I am open to alternative models of how non-revolutionary workers become revolutionary. The problem here is that you've been asked twice to provide an alternative explanation, but haven't done so. I wonder why. -You still don't explain how non-revolutionary workers become revolutionary. How does it happen?

Five Year Plan

Marxists, intellectuals, whatever, provide the necessarily theoretical and political discipline making them aware of their present conditions. Thus the intensification of the class struggle breeds the revolutionary movement. Again that's different from 'compelling' them to buy into our notion of a new society, rather it is making them aware of the illegitimacy of the ruling class and it's political rule. I can't put it in any other way, but workers are generally attracted to the ideas of those of revolutionary consciousness, it is not really a matter of 'convincing' , pamphlets by Marx weren't advertised, they logically gained popularity among the already radicalised proletariat. As Communists we must recognize that truly Communism is a manifestation of their interests, again we provide direction, we do not 'compel' them. The struggle derives from existing conditions, not potential conditions.

47

Honest question, are you trolling?

-

It is not simply one or the other, either they are implanted with ideas or develop them spontaneously - rather over the coarse of their real struggles to realize their interests, the nature of their struggle can become confused, degenerate and so on - which is why revolutionary consciousness must necessarily be adopted externally from those fully aware of existing conditions.

If you're generally curious, then I recommend looking into the development of radical politics and the proletarian movements of the 19th century, how they developed as radical offspring of the bourgeois revolutionary fervor, in realization that their interests were not being fulfilled by the bourgeoisie.

-

So Marxist intellectuals present arguments about how workers should understand their experiences, and how they might go about changing those experiences in the most effective way? Gee, this sounds an awful lot like "brilliant thinkers" convincing people. Are you a child?

Who said anything about "compelling" workers to do anything? Making arguments is nowhere near the same as compulsion. In fact, where compulsion is possible, arguments become unnecessary.

If workers are "generally attracted to the ideas of those of revolutionary consciousness," then isn't it incumbent upon "those of revolutionary consciousness" to put forward their ideas as forthrightly as possible, including their understanding of what a revolution would entail and the kind of society a revolution would help to create?

You spend multiple posts deriding the idea that revolutionaries should engage non-revolutionary workers' ideas and "visions," then, when pressed upon an alternative model of how to make non-revolutionary workers revolutionary, you basically just spit out a tortured restatement of that very model. Then you ask whether I am trolling? That's rich.

Five Year Plan

You can't 'make' non-revolutionary workers revolutionary, it is not so much pure reason we are talking about, or what you are claiming to say. It is your very ideological foundations that would prompt you to say such a thing, 'How do we make non-revolutionary workers revolutionary'. It's like a senator in the U.S. being politically correct about his racism, or saying he 'opposes big government'. It is not so much the problem of what you claim to say, but why you say it in the manner you do. your infantile understanding of the development of revolutionary consciousness makes this very difficult for you to understand, I know.

No, I cannot provide a simplistic, straightforward answer to that question because it is really a false question, and the situation itself is not simple, You ask such a question while assuming your presumptions about the revolution are correct in the first place, and they are not. And when I attack them, like a broken record you

48

repeat the same nonsense and make it as though I am incapable of answering the question without giving a "tortured restatement".

Brilliant thinkers do not create the movement, or 'compel' (Yes, you did use that word) workers to 'be revolutionary', they provide the necessary direction by which workers become revolutionary as a logical result of the pursuit of their own ends. That is a lot different from brilliant thinkers convincing people of trying to struggle for what they believe is a nice sounding society.

You are casually and ignorantly equating the struggle against the existing order with the struggle for a utopia, and that therin is the problem. The conquest of power in which the proletariat is able to realize their interests will logically create conditions for a new order, however it is the former that which the struggle exists for, the later is simply an effect. It is very difficult for you to understand, and you'll respond to this predictably with "YOU'RE DODGING THE QUESTION". The very nature of your question is ridiculous. I am curious, are you actually trolling? Only a troll could be capable of spouting such nonsense, it's like you're ignoring the entirety of my posts, skimming over them and finding snippets which are completely out of context that you think you could provide an argument with. You're taking my clothing from me and creating from them a straw-man, either not aware, or ignorant of the fact that I'm standing right here, a real person of which such clothing is meaningless without. The whole of my post is that person, and those snippets are the straw.

-

My posts are here, everyone can read them thoughtfully and form there own conclusions. There is nothing you have posted that I haven't thoroughly addressed previously. And it's not so far off the bat that you're trolling (albeit, in a sophisticated manner) once people have a grasp of the discussion.

But go ahead, re-hash the same nonsense, maybe the 10th time your argument will mean something.

-

So, no, nobody here is advocating "making" or "compelling" workers to do anything. And nobody is advocating the use of "pure reason"

Five Year Plan

Five Year Plan, you don't know what I'm talking about when I speak of "pure

49

reason". I speak of pure reason not in the context of convincing or attracting workers, but this discussion, this argument itself. Your ideological foundations bleed through your words, and for that reason I cannot approach them for what you claim them to be. That is the problem.

Faulting me for framing my question as "how do you we make non-revolutionary workers revolutionary" is also funny, since the way I prefer framing the issue is the way that I did in my previous post: "how do workers become revolutionary?" The "authoritative" element actually comes from your initial attempt to address the issue, where you donned your faux macho revolutionary cap and proclaimed, chest puffed out, that "Marxists, intellectuals, whatever, provide the necessarily theoretical and political discipline making them aware of their present conditions."

See what you did there? You talked of Marxist intellectuals "disciplining" and "making the workers aware of things," then when I respond to this framework by replicating it, you fault me for adopting it. Epic trolling, that.

Five Year Plan

The problem is not the act of engaging workers and leading them to the abolishment of their present conditions, rather the problem is what exactly you're engaging them with. That was the point from start. As I had said countless times before, the problem are your false presumptions which you dismiss as a breath of fresh air. There is an astronomical difference between introducing the concept of abolishing their present conditions, fighting against the state - and telling them about your elaborate new society and what this 'new society' will entail. Marx said something along the lines of the embyro of communism is within present conditions for a reason. Because I do not answer your venus-fly trap of a question with simplicity, you then further accuse me of 'dodging the question':

So you answer the question, then when I point out that your answer is just a bullshit, poorly worded restatement of the answer I originally gave, you back-peddle and claim that you can't answer the question. More fantastic trolling.

Five Year Plan

Any idiot can recognize I've answered the question, I've answered the question countless times, I just haven't answered it the way you wanted me to. You're arguing like a child and honestly, I say this in the most comradely manner I can: Grow up. You're not winning this argument, you're making a fool of yourself and anyone whose had a mere glance at any one of my posts and the way you've replied to them recognizes this.

And yes, I agree that revolutionaries "provide the necessary direction by which workers become revolutionary." They do this by providing models of leadership in their activism, while simultaneously explaining to workers the rationale behind that behavior, specifically the need to overthrow capitalism and how the working class can begin to organize to achieve that task. You refuse to elaborate on what you mean by "provide necessary direction," because you know that if you do, you'll end up in the uncomfortable position of admitting that "visions of a new society" very much do play a role, not the *only* role, in how non-revolutionary workers become revolutionary.

50

And how does the conquest of power by workers occur? As a result of workers becoming revolutionary and seizing state power. And how does that occur? Oops. We're back to you trying to duck that most nettlesome of questions, so you can avoid talking about those "visions of a new society" again.

Five Year Plan

Necessary direction comes from the necessity of political action in consistency with Communist ideological doctrine forged in the fires of the struggle itself. It is up to the task of those of revolutionary consciousness to preserve, defend and uphold the Communist nature of the struggling proletariat, in order to further reintroduce it to them. What that means, essentially, is not 'pointing them in the direction of our new society' as you would have it, but pointing them to hte direction of the abolishment of their present conditions. While you predictably want to equate them, they are not the same. The latter is a direct act with context, the former is nothing short of the result of such a thing. The proletariat first and foremost wishes to achieve state power and abolish themselves - the rest, the 'new society' and all the immediate things that would entail (housing, work, and so on) would necessarily have to be addressed when the revolution is imminent or when the revolutionary struggle has reached a mature stage. However at no point in the struggle do we convince workers to buy into our little utopian fantasies. And what you fail to understand is that the blips of utopia within the Communist movement were ideological manifestations of the existing struggle, not any real hypothesis of what a post capitalist society would look like. Just as the stoics of Rome had their ideal societies which really embedded their actually existing class interests.

So what this essentially means is that, to give an example, the establishment of a real political program that would allow the proletariat to combat the enemy in the most effective means possible. You keep presuming that the end goal itself is this 'new society' and for that reason you keep accusing me of 'dodging the question'.

That isn't how adults argue, Five Year Plan. Would workers have to be approached and given a 'vision of a new society'? They might be, who knows, but the point is that is not why they struggle in the first place. That was the basis of my initial argument and you simply lack the ability to address it for what it is without obfuscating it with some nonsense, and then running wild. Even more pathetic is how you profess your 'victory' over me because I refuse to argue within the parameters set forth by your ridiculous infantile presumptions.

I would never approach a white nationalist while abiding by the presumption "do

51

you want white genocide?". How could anyone argue with this, if not giving a detailed explanation as to why such a concept is bunk in the first place. He may accuse you of dodging the question, but that's only because it's a false question in the

first place.

And of course this is perfectly comparable, when you ask me if workers are going to need a "vision of a new society", I could only say maybe, I have to give a detailed explanation as to why - while they might have an idea of a new society in their heads this is a) Not reflective of what this society would actually look like and wholly ideological and most importantly b) they are not struggling as a class to realize this new society, rather they struggle for the conquest of state power by which such a new society would be a logical result. THE PREMISE OF THE ARGUMENT IS WHY THEY STRUGGLE, AND WHAT THEY ARE STRUGGLING FOR. IT IS NOT WHAT THEIR PRESUMPTIONS ABOUT A POST-CAPITALIST SOCIETY ARE. I know this is very hard for you to understand, often times with non-Marxists it is difficult, but bear with me Five Year Plan.

A logical result of the conquest of state power is going to be global civil war, madness and barbarism in the suppression of the counter revolution. Do workers struggle for terror? Do workers fight for the deaths of millions? No! We might engage with them and discuss the scale of the implications of the seizure of power, but that is not why they are fighting. You fail to understand this simple point, or you don't, and you're just a troll. I don't even expect you're going to read this entire post, but it's here for everyone else.

However your conception of socialism and this 'new society' is wholly divorced from any proletarian movement, it is the result of your own obscure intellectual machinations. You can go ahead and call this accusation 'poetry' and 'macho bullshit', but I think it is inarguable that deep down you know damned well I am right. Don't you see how ferociously you argue now, as compared to me? Do you honestly think you're actually having a go at me? At the moment, I am teaching you, Five Year Plan. I know you're trying to troll as hard as you can, but give it a rest and grow up.

It turns out that all the second-grade poetry and macho posturing you litter the board with is just a house of cards,

52

Rafiq. It, and you, stand exposed. How does it feel?

Five Year Plan

There have been several times where upon being wrong, I have conceded defeat. I am capable of humility, I am capable of admitting I am wrong. I am wholly and solely dedicated to Marxism first and foremost, not myself, not my reputation - and if I see that a grain of what I say is wrong, or discredited, I will abandon it immediately. Indeed there have been more than a few times in which I had admitted I was wrong.

But Five Year Plan, you're either trolling or seriously delusional if you actually think this is one of those times. Not only have I not been discredited here, not only has my 'poetry' and 'macho posturing' not been reduced to a 'house of cards', I have proven my point to everyone that you yourself are incapable of coherent and reasoned discussion. I have been polite, I have been wholly reasonable, and like a cornered rat you are thrown into a frenzy. You are only capable of recycling the same nonsense over and over again - what argument have you used was original? That you haven't used before in this discussion? Why post if it's the same discredited nonsense? Do you honestly believe that if you repeat such nonsense a second, third, fourth, or fifth time, it is any less wrong? I compliment you wholly by accusing you of trolling, becuase if you are not trolling that indeed would be a sad thing. If you here are actually believe the arguments you are making are in any way of any substance, if you actually believe that you are in anyway discrediting me or 'proving me wrong', or 'winning this argument' I can only feel bad for you.

It is unbelievable that you would think that because I do not abide by your false presumptions, I somehow am "dodging your questions".

What makes you different from this?:

Well I have a question, and you can't dodge it: Do you believe in limited government? Economic freedom? Don't you dare bring your nonsensical poetry into this, or your obscurities, I want a straightforward, simple answer. Elaborating and explaining your real positions only means you're dodging the question.

I mean, if you want to think that you've cornered me, or that you've "exposed" me, that you're some David whose defeated Goliath, then you can feel free to. If it soothes the pain of having a poor understanding of Marxism and a poor understanding of life in general, then by all means, continue to believe that. You're just, you know, wrong.

53

-

I think the most coherent, reasoned argument he has made so far is this:

No, I'm not.

Five Year Plan

At least he's honest about being unable to argue like an adult.

Anyway, Five Year Plan isn't going to read the whole thing. He's going to skim through and cherry pick what he thinks he can argue with. Of coarse it will be out of context and complete nonsense: Isn't it telling that I'm two steps ahead of him here? How can someone be so predictable? I literally know exactly what he's going to reply with because I have the whole premise of his disagreement completely understood. Five Year Plan has throughout many threads attempted to attack me, and in every single one he's been proven a damned fool. He is going to defend his little jab at me to the end, full aware that he was mistaken, because he's a child.

Even more funny though: A child-Trotskyist actually believes that he will be my undoing. I actually laugh at this prospect, after everything, my theoretical composition is shattered to pieces by Five Year Plan, a child. He thinks he's the first person to tout such nonsense. To everyone reading this, there will be plenty of Five Year Plan's that will come and go with their nonsense. And eventually, they will grow old only to abandon their meek and baseless ideas. I am here to stay.

-

And I have no problem with the fact that you're here to stay. I look forward to revealing your bullshit for what it is in thread after thread.

Five Year Plan

Oh, just as you have in this thread? Do you honestly think a couple of sentences declaring that I am wrong (Because you said so) counts as "revealing my bullshit"? Literally there is nothing that you have said that I didn't already address.

Also, in times when revolution was imminent, can you refer to some historical examples where intellectuals leading the revolution seduced workers with elaborate visions of a new society? Saying that workers would have somewhat of an idea of what a post revolution society would look like, isn't a fucking concession. The argument was whether workers are fighting or fight for the purpose of realizing this abstract utopia of yours (among other internet "Communists")

while they might have an idea of a new society in their heads this is a) Not reflective of what this society would

54

actually look like and wholly ideological and most importantly b) they are not struggling as a class to realize this new society, rather they struggle for the conquest of state power by which such a new society would be a logical result. THE PREMISE OF THE ARGUMENT IS WHY THEY STRUGGLE, AND WHAT THEY ARE STRUGGLING FOR. IT IS NOT WHAT THEIR PRESUMPTIONS ABOUT A POST-CAPITALIST SOCIETY ARE. I know this is very hard for you to understand, often times with non-Marxists it is difficult, but bear with me Five Year Plan. Rafiq

Five Year Plan calls this a "concession", he makes it as though I am running in retreat with my tail caught between my legs. My initial point stands adamantly as wholly and unarguably correct.

Five Year Plan is incapable of engaging in any magnitude of reasonable discussion because he dismisses the entirety of my post as "poorly written dreck". If "poorly written dreck" can wholly de-legitimize and discredit him in the way that it did, I wonder what he thinks of the quality of his own posts are to begin with.

-

I think it's quite obvious that Five Year Plan is fully aware of his own dishonesty here, there is literally no argument.

My point

The goal of Marxism was never to "create a new society"

His:

So when Marx wrote, "The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it," you think the "change" he is talking about isn't a transformation of society into a new (non-exploitative) type?

Not only is Five Year Plan wholly convinced that the proletarian class struggles against the class enemy (as though they are exempt from the nature of class itself) to realize an abstract utopia, he proclaims that the goal of Marxism is to realize a "new society". For Five Year Plan, Marxism is not a means of understanding, Marxism is not a scientific understanding of human social relationships and history, among many other things, it is some kind of "plan", some kind of "tool" to create a new society. To speak of "goals" as far as Marxism, a paradigm of science is the most childish thing I could think of as far as this discussion goes. Five Year Plan is wholly ignorant of the fact that Marxism and the worker's movement are not one and the same.

Five Year Plan actually believes that Marxism = Worker's movement. He does not realize that historically it took effort to see to the merger of Marxism and the proletarian movement (which had existed before Marxism). He is not only wrong about his assertions regarding revolutionary consciousness and the nature of

55

Communist ideology - he is wrong about Marxism itself. Because he isn't a Marxist, he's a liberal who thinks that the facade of Communism, as though it is some extensive magnitude of liberalism (evidently his blatant and completely philistine "rationalism" and inability to understand the psychological, ideological dimensions behind things) is more appealing. He is by no means a radical, he's an apologist for radicalism, much like his idol Trotsky.

-

Where did I say "intellectuals," as a sociological category distinct from the vanguard of the working class, will lead any revolution? I guess you think workers aren't capable of envisioning new societies. That says a lot about your opinion of workers.

Five Year Plan

First you accuse me of spontaneism, and now you claim that workers can develop revolutionary consciousness (Which rests on the false presumption that revolutionary consciousness = visions about a new society) on their own. That begs the question as to why you are dodging the point: Can you name me an example?

Workers fighting for a revolution, who have an understanding of what that post-revolutionary society entails, aren't fighting for a revolution because they desire to attain their vision of a post-revolutionary society? No, according to you, they have the (general, not utopian) vision in their head, but their struggle for revolution has absolutely nothing to do with the vision they have,

Five Year Plan

Such a vision, if any, is a result of their struggles: how can they have previously struggled as revolutionaries, as conscious proletarians if they only started to have this idea at the climax of the revolutionary struggle? The Ten Planks were not a Utopian vision, they were immediate tasks the proletariat would work towards in the event of a proletarian dictatorship. That's different for an elaborate utopia. And this begs the question: Why would they formulate this in the first place? Wouldn't such a formulation have to have occurred BEFORE revolutionary struggle? Evidently, historically speaking it does not. Almost as though you are a religious with your detailed descriptions of heaven, and how your followers will be rewarded for their service with paradise. It's sleazy, dishonest, and in this regard petty bourgeois. They are the distinctive features of a cult.

Now things are changing. The above, to-the-point, succinct picking apart of your bullshit is exactly what you can expect in whatever thread you spew your nonsense in. Hold yourself in readiness.

Five Year Plan

You've dodged, ignored and dismissed all of the crucial points, such as within the context of this discussion: who the fuck are YOU to talk about a post-revolutionary society in conditions in which proletarian consciousness is not the least bit developed, in which there is no Communist movement? Unless you are delusional

56

to believe that your Trotskyist sects are a vehicle for revolution...

Five Year Plan thinks cherry picking phrases and words that are out of context and formulating a straw man is "to-the-point, succinct picking apart of your bullshit". He then pledges to do so in threads to come. While we could only assume this is trolling, I welcome him to. If this thread is anything close to an example of how it will play out, then I can expect many more victories for Marxism to come. But can we call this a victory? He is not even a worthy opponent as far as discussion goes, he is a mosquito you, upon noticing effortlessly swat, crush, and proceed to go about your business. There's been far more experienced, knowledgeable and theoretically adept Marxists who have had a go at me, and failed. Do you really think of yourself as some kind of internet savior whose going to come and defeat big bad me because everyone else is, apparently too afraid to? Go ahead, try and have a go at me again, this isn't even about me. I'm worthless, I'm nothing, I'll die eventually and no one will remember me. This is about the legacy of Marxism and what that entails, and you can argue your way through a hundred me's: Marxism will stand strong. -

Now you are asking for examples of where workers arrive at revolutionary consciousness "on their own." I'm not sure what you are even asking here. Workers develop revolutionary consciousness in a variety of ways, but all these ways entail weighing ideas, either their own ideas or the ideas of others, against their social experiences. So social- revolutionary consciousness always develops in a decidedly social context, around other people, not in solitary confinement. If that is what you mean by "on their own," then no worker develops such consciousness on their own.

Five Year Plan

No, Five Year Plan, once again you either deliberately attempt to dodge the question, or formulate false premises of discussion to begin with. I asked you

Also, in times when revolution was imminent, can you refer to some historical examples where intellectuals leading the revolution seduced workers with elaborate visions of a new society?

Fine then, exchange "intellectuals" with workers of higher consciousness or whatever the fuck you want, the question still stands. Why are you unable to answer it? Are you 'dodging' the question, just has you had accused me? You are at every turn now contradicting yourself: First I am arguing for "spontaneism" and now you're saying workers develop revolutionary consciousness on their own. This is precisely what is called spontaneism and yes Marxists as intellectuals are truly not one and the same with the proletariat: Lenin was not a proletarian, Kautsky was no proletarian, Marx was no proletarian... All the giants of Marxism were not proletarians, they were of the intelligentsia.

You're arguing that workers are incapable of developing a revolutionary consciousness in non-revolutionary periods.

57

I disagree, and as an example, I can point you to many of the posters on this forum who want socialism, who fight for the vision they have of a socialist society, even though they do not live in, or are currently struggling in, a social- revolutionary situation.

Five Year Plan

Which one is it, Five Year Plan? Will a revolutionary vanguard (A term Lenin never used) or workers themselves lead the revolution? And in which cases was the Communist movement not led by the revolutionary intelligentsia? I would be very curious if you could name me one historical circumstance, just one, Five Year Plan. You cannot. No one is saying that members of the revolutionary intelligentsia are incapable of having been or are proletarians: We know Stalin for a time was a factory worker (Actually I could be mistaken here). Let us assume you are correct that posters here are of revolutionary consciousness: What exactly distinguishes them from revolutionary intellectuals? Besides the fact that they may share work environments from other workers? What exactly is the difference here? Is convincing workers of buying into your utopia different, if you're a worker too? Are the vocal chords of proletarians so distinctly structured as well as their ability to hear, so that they possess a form of communication that the revolutionary intelligentsia is incapable of? No wonder the October revolution failed! Lenin was completely bunk because he wasn't a proletarian!

So what do we learn from this? You're trying to evade the question and change the discussion. The points you have brought forth are irrelevant and do nothing to change the point of the questions, they can be intellectuals or they can be intellectuals who are also wage earning workers, ti does not matter. When we speak of the proletariat, we do not speak of individual proletarian, we speak of the proletariat as a collective force, as a class with a common social relationship to production. When we say 'the proletariat' does something, or possess ideas, we do not speak of posters on internet forums, we speak of a whole distinguishable and identifiable mass social phenomena. Again, you're dodging the point, though even then you are crushed all the same under the weight of whole truth: Truth is worthless if it is not part of a whole, and your truths do not fit a systemic whole: instead they are inconsistent, incoherent and contradict each other at every turn. We can only assume then that your partake in this discussion is not about the defense of Marxism, it is not about the defense of revolutionary ideas: It is about you desperately trying to win. And you won't.

Except the vision of "a society where everybody's needs are met and production is democratically planned" is not an "elaborate" much less a "utopian" vision. It is the vision that revolutionary socialists have, and it is what they

58

struggle to achieve. It is the vision that, once attained, drives their daily political work, even if that work is presently just about reforms.

But I am pleased to see that you are now trying to "sleazily" adjust your claim from "workers do not struggle for a vision of a new society" to "workers do not struggle for a utopian vision of a new society."

Five Year Plan

Okay, so now you claim that this vision is no longer elaborate. You seem to be missing the point of my argument, you keep straying from the coarse of the discussion and opening up new ones (which really only further discredit you, by the way). My official position is this, and has always been this: Workers do not struggle because they want a new society (that doesn't mean they don't want one, or that a new society is not a logical result), none the less a Utopian one. And the Utopian one I speak of is your conception of what a post-captialist society would look like, among almost all other internet Communists. That is what I mean. That is what I have said if you were actually reading my posts wholly and honestly to begin with. But as a Trotskyist, you are incapable of this.

What you fail to understand is that workers struggle in order to realize their interests in accord with their present and existing conditions, my point has always been "The struggle derives from existing conditions, not potential conditions". And while workers may have an idea of what a new society looks like, any talk of a new society (not in the sense that a new society is possible, but what this society will look like, and so on) is nothing short of ideological. My point, my point has always been that while we can say that we want a society in which things will be like X, this sais nothing about any potential new society, it sais everything about the ideological nature of the revolutionary proletariat within existing conditions, within their present struggle against the class enemy. The bourgeois ideologues, from humanism up to the enlightenment had spoken of 'new societies': This didn't really amount to much as far as the reality of the new societies went.

The utopians and petty bourgeois ideologues such as your self fail to realize that...

Wait, I already said this (interestingly enough you ignored it):

Petty bourgeois intellectuals see the stormy alterations of the revolutionary movement and the struggle as an ugly means to a pretty ends. Rather, the movement itself is the real ends in that the logical conclusion of the seizure of power is an act inherent to the struggle itself, not inherent to those speculating or sympathizing with it.

The whole point is that any vision of a new society, such as the ten planks, derived from the revolutionary struggle itself, proletarians did not struggle

59

against the state in order to realize the ten planks, rather, the Ten Planks were formulated in order to have an idea of what to do in the event of a proletarian dictatorship. Because we are in a non-revolutionary situation, unlike Marx, unlike the Bolsheviks: Who are you to come up with the political prerogatives of a proletarian dictatorship (A post revolutionary society) when the premises, the embryo of such a dictatorship, the revolutionary proletarian movement does not exist? How can you understand the nature of a post revolutionary society when you cannot know the nature of a revolutionary movement in the 21st century?

I wish ckaihatsu could make a diagram of your trolling technique, which has been the only consistent thing you have brought to the discussion. I make a very long post detailing and addressing all of your points, shattering them and de- legitimizing you - you respond to a fraction of them which are distinctively out of context, and then repeat the same arguments. And on, and on the cycle goes. B

Now, I will use the following example of Five Year Plan's infantile understanding of the argument:

Who was Marx to talk about his (general, non-Utopian) vision of a post-revolutionary society?

Five Year Plan

Stop right there. What are you talking about? Do you have any idea what I was saying? How can you claim to address me when you have absolutely no idea of what I was talking about? Marx, along with anyone else during his time could have formulated a vision - because the revolutionary proletariat had built itself after decades of struggle, because the Communist movement had already existed and was derived from those existing premises, because proletarian consciousness was advanced and a proletarian dictatorship was a very probable thing. That is what gives Marx legitimacy when he spoke of the Ten Planks, or even speculated (as he did in the German Ideology) about the conditions of a post revolutionary society (which really only served to expose the nature of our EXISTING society).

But who the fuck are you? Who are those 'reddit Communists' who talk of their feasible Communist society that they want workers to fight for? Who exactly are you, to be able to logically deduce what a post-revolutionary society would entail if we are not even close to a revolutionary situation, or at least a situation in which the proletariat has established a political program? Who are you, Five Year Plan?

60

You're a troll, or you're delusional, or you don't know what you're talking about. Want to know why you don't know what you're talking about?

Does anyone remember when I claimed that Five Year Plan's method is to make a false accusation based on false presumptions about my post, and then run wild with it?

Well take a look at this:

Who is any of us. We're people on a political forum debating political ideas and visions of a new society. If you don't like it, don't let the door hit you on the way out. And take your pathetic attempts at poetry with you.

Five Year Plan

Ah, alas, the excrement of excrement, the offspring of already an initial lie. He makes these ridiculous presumption, and then spouts this kind of nonsense that you see above. Five Year Plan I say this kindly, I say this as a caring stranger: you're making an ass out of yourself. I mean it's hilarious, look at this shit! Look at how he's forming these wild conclusions, look at how he's trying to school me! Go back and take a fucking look at what I said first, if you don't feel you can respond to it adequately then shut the fuck up and don't respond at all!

And he keeps talking of my "pathetic attempts at poetry". When have I used poetry in this thread? Do you even know what poetry is? I have in the past expressed many valid points through the use of poetry - but you want to know who was the greatest offender of the use of poetry? You want to know whose unconstrained use of poetry would irritate you the most? Marx himself, Marx who used poetry several times in order to get his point across. And besides, such poetry is completely self conscious, such poetry is like Marx's: in that it is almost sarcastic. You, among others who have attacked me for using it don't understand. And you can't, because your Communist ideological universe is either non-existent or incomplete.

But of coarse you won't respond to that. Of coarse you won't acknowledge the sword that has pierced you. Of coarse you'll take more phrases and words completely out of context and form a new argument, and then run wild with your false accusations and ridiculous presumptions. Of coarse you'll ignore this too, even though it's in larger font. Which is okay, because I don't give a shit about you.

61

This is for everyone else. Anyone whose been paying the slightest amount of attention to this argument cannot but bear the fowl smell of your dishonesty, you're not fooling anyone when you're trying to change the parameters of the discussion. There is nothing you have said, that I did not previously address. When my post is exceptionally long, you make a sentence or two giving it a jab, I reply, and on it goes. I'm being honest, if you're trolling just stop, you've had your fun, we get it.

And if you're not trolling, well, since we all know you have no qualms with being the dishonest worm you are, why don't you just falsely confess you were trolling, in order to not embarrass yourself by making it as though the nonsense you've spewed is what you actually believe.

-

I promise everyone here he won't even reply to a third of this. He's going to do the same thing that he has continually done. He's going to reply to phrases out of context and formulate a new straw man. I can already predict the arguments he will try to level against me.

But go on, claim you won't respond to them because they're "poorly written" and too "poetic". The pompous liberal you are, sitting on your bourgeois-rationalist throne looking down upon me?

-

Five Year Plan thinks that somehow, he derives legitimacy from the fact that my posts are often ill-received on this website. As though that means anything.

To him, it means he can dismiss my posts as worthless, as nothing. Is he a child? Does the essence of my post rely on how popular I am on this website, or what my social status is here? He hasn't been here long enough to realize that I'm not just some gremlin who everyone overlooks and dismisses: There is, or at least was a sizable number of users who generally concurred with me.

-

Two posts ago you were asking me to name a revolutionary movement that was led by intellectuals, as if you thought such a thing never existed. Now you are claiming that the Communist movement has never not been led by a revolutionary intellgentsia. Somebody here seems confused and blind to his own contradictions, and that person happens not to be me.

Five Year Plan

Two posts ago...

62

Also, in times when revolution was imminent, can you refer to some historical examples where intellectuals leading the revolution seduced workers with elaborate visions of a new society? Saying that workers would have somewhat of an idea of what a post revolution society would look like, isn't a fucking concession. The argument was whether workers are fighting or fight for the purpose of realizing this abstract utopia of yours (among other internet "Communists")

Rafiq

Yes, Before I demanded you name an example in which intellectuals led the revolution, I totally didn't ask for an example about intellectuals advertising what communism will look like and seducing workers about a new society. You can think that if it makes you feel better, but no one believes it..

-

The conclusions that you have arrive at, evidently you could not have arrived at without taking things out of context. I wonder what that sais about your intellectual honesty as a whole. Honest question did you read the whole thing?

Where did I ever say that the vision of a new society that revolutionaries have is "elaborate"? In point of fact, I have stated multiple times just the opposite. You once again are debating voices in your head. Let me know when you actually want to try debating me.

Five Year Plan

Look at the segment he replied to, look how he carefully ignored the rest

Okay, so now you claim that this vision is no longer elaborate. You seem to be missing the point of my argument, you keep straying from the coarse of the discussion and opening up new ones

Rafiq

I explicitly made it clear that it's irrelivent, it doesn't matter whether you agree if it's "elaborate" or not, it is Utopian none the less. Just because you refuse to talk about the 72 virgins, but continue to insist the religious fundamentalists struggle in order to go to paradise doesn't make it less utopian (interestingly enough, the religious don't fight for this: Rather there are deeply complicated social dimensions

to something like islamism - this is very ironic).

-

Which statement of yours have I taken out of context in a way that misrepresents their meaning?

 

Five Year Plan

 

Actually, literally (and I'm not just saying this) all of them. If you want an example, look to the post above you.

-

I hope you are bright enough to understand how it is possible for workers to arrive at revolutionary consciousness based on their own experience, without that making their arrival "automatic" or seamless, as if bourgeois propaganda were not trying to intervene at every step of the way.

Five Year Plan

Also this itself is nothing short of ridiculous, cult-like: Communist ideology derives from premises now in existence, not some kind of specialized fashion workers evade the bombardments of the illuminati or reptilians subliminal

63

messages (And yes, that is very comparable to your understanding of "bourgeois propaganda". Propaganda is intentional, ideology is not propaganda). Surprise, Surprise that a Trotskyist would tout such drivel.

But to address the point at hand, absolutely no proponents of spontaneism, which tend to be 'libertarian socialists' or left communists of the dutch tradition, claim that the transition to revolutionary consciousness is seamless or automatic. That itself is a straw-man argument. They claim that revolutionary consciousness is developed much in the way you describe, but rather on a mass scale - one worker to another. That is pure spontaneism and a distinguishable or special proletarian who develops the views he does divorced from the collective, mass ideology of his class is therefore a member of the intelligentsia. The argument stands, and it does not make a difference, AS I SAID BEFORE. Why do I have to repeat myself?

-

If you don't specifically explain how my representations of what you said differ from what you were intending to convey, I don't see how your latest posts stand as anything other than empty, unsubstantiated accusations and sour grapes.

Five Year Plan

I have explained in all of the previous posts of this thread, literally the great bulk of my posts was explaining how your representations and false presumptions about my posts were entirely wrong. Are you honestly trolling? Like what the FUCK do you think I've been doing for the past million posts if not precisely that? And now you're curious about it? Now you're interested? Because all of your arguments are the same recycled nonsense, you can go back and look yourself. Click the previous page and look. The argument is over. The debate is over. You have discredited yourself in a way more elaborate and efficient then I could eve dream to.

-

But then there is no context to speak of if literally all of the statements were taken out of...well, yeah, context.

LinksRadikal

There is a real context, the context of my posts. If I have a great chunk of text which is necessary in order to understand every part of it, and someone takes a phrase that is meaningless without the rest - that is taking it out of context.

If I am replying to him, in that he was taking my previous post out of context, I am creating a new context from which he takes phrases out of. He's not replying to my

64

posts wholly, it's not as though he's actually replying to my arguments. He's taking phrases, words from whole truths and reducing them to something entirely different.

-

Are you suggesting that this inconsistency didn't exist?

Five Year Plan

No. I am asserting it didn't exist. I don't care if you find it 'odd', you cannot go about claiming I contradicted myself when you know damn well this is not the case. But yes, I find it incredibly distasteful that some think intellectuals who distinctively in this case have an idea of a feasible society, should recruit workers and have them fight in order for them to realize the society. It's the same sad story of the modern Left, and it doesn't work because it has no real social application.

Intellectuals like Marx and Lenin, on the other hand, the revolutionary intelligentsia, Marxists do not hold such ridiculous reservations. A does not equal A in different contexts. That is the failure of liberal rationalism. You don't even understand basic logic, however, you fail to understand that Lenin can be an Intellectual and so can a Left-Utopian, they are distinguished in their intellectual character, what they are.

So what is this inconsistency you speak of?

-

I see what you did there. You claim libertarian socialists are spontaneists, but that they don't think that revolutionary consciousness is seamless or automatic. Therefore you are operating with a different definition of spontaneism than I am. I explained what my definition was, and it's really the only definition of the term that I see used on the revolutionary left. I'm not saying your definition is wrong: it's just not mine. I hope that explains why I corrected you when you claimed I was contradicting myself. I wasn't. You thought I was because you were attributing your definition of the word to me, and it's a definition I obviously don't share.

Five Year Plan

This is nothing but dishonest: As far as revolutionary discourse goes, as far as how the usage of the term has historically been used in talking of those economistic spontaneists, there is a real coherent definition that you know damn well of. No spontaneist argues for "seamless, automatic" consciousness. They all recognize it can take time to develop, and different stages. The point however is that it is not "imposed" externally. I don't care about your personal definition, that is meaningless and irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

-

The question is which ones.

65

LinksRadikal

Quite obviously the ones he quoted.

-

He can't respond wholly to your posts, as there are many chunks of them that are either personal attacks or polemical bluster that wouldn't even fit into the century it came from. You didn't "wholly" respond to him either, as the post history plainly shows. Why should you expect a standard that neither of you have, or should have (in your case, at least) met?

MEGAMANTROTSKY

I'm not asking that he respond to my entire post, indeed I did not respond to his entire post: BUT I ACTUALLY ADDRESSED THE ARGUMENT HE WAS MAKING and if I did not quote something specifically, that does not mean I ignored it. What exactly did I ignore? What crucial points did he make that I intentionally ignored? literally I can provide a billion examples. If he makes a presumption that is wrong and the rest of his argument is nothing short of a result of that false presumption, I have to first attack the presumption and then the rest is blatantly, and obviously wrong.

-

Now, when asked where I misrepresented what you were saying, you're not providing any specific examples and are just claiming you have already provided the examples. That's not going to work either, Rafiq.

Five Year Plan

They're in the thread, Five Year Plan.

You said

If you don't specifically explain how my representations of what you said differ from what you were intending to convey

What have my posts been if not exactly this? What, you want me to essentially, just re-write them all? Is everything written in the 6th page now void? Does it have to be imported to the 7th in order to hold legitimacy? Why don't I just copy and paste them, for fuck's sake? There's not point in either.

-

In this little attempt at diverting the discussion, you are right to note that ideology is analytically distinct from propaganda. They exist at two different levels of analysis. Some propaganda advances a bourgeois ideology. Some of it advances a revolutionary socialist ideology. So no, it is not ridiculous for me to talk about how bourgeois propaganda is backed by a multi-billion dollar apparatus that attempts to get workers to interpret their experiences in ways that are friendly to capitalism, in ways that would disrupt any spontaneous or automatic translation of workers' immediate experiences into a high-level understanding of revolutionary socialist tasks.

Five Year Plan

Yes propaganda exists, but very quickly and easily it is pure ideology. Just look at the vocabulary that is used by the Koch brothers funded Cato institute. No longer is it propaganda, it is a breath of fresh air, it is ideology. The point is that propaganda

66

can never stand as the sole deterrence of the development of proletarian consciousness: circumstances of power-relations are crucial here: The defeat of labor and the betrayal of unions in the 1990's was the sole problem, the advance and specialization of the bourgeois state itself. Of course propaganda can reproduce and deter consciousness in small ways: This, however, is the smallest of problems.

-

And now we're on the 8th page. Do we need to import everything form the previous one, or should we just rehash the same arguments and pretend they are new?

-

As I said, you asked in the first post whether I can name an example of where revolutionary workers were led by intellectuals and their visions. In the second post, you ask me if I could name examples of where workers were not led by an intelligentsia/intellectuals.

Nope, no inconsistency here.

Five Year Plan

I don't know if English is your native language but clearly from this:

Also, in times when revolution was imminent, can you refer to some historical examples where intellectuals leading the revolution seduced workers with elaborate visions of a new society?

Rafiq

We can tell that intellectuals leading the revolution is rather a given, they are distinguished here as intellectuals seducing workers with elaborate visions of a new society. Why would I put in the later part if that wasn't what was important? Why wouldn't I just say "Give me an example of intellectuals leading the revolution". No organic form of proletarian consciousness would be similar to such utopianism, this is why I used the word intellectual. That does not however mean much as far as the argument you're trying to make goes.

Now the obvious truth is that you misinterpreted it, which is fine. You can admit that, because quite obviously you did. It's not even up for debate, you clearly fucking misinterpreted it. The more you defend yourself here, the more of an ass you look like.

And now for the phrase that contradicts the former?

And in which cases was the Communist movement not led by the revolutionary intelligentsia? I would be very curious if you could name me one historical circumstance, just one, Five Year Plan. You cannot.

67

Rafiq

Notice the terminology, revolutionary intelligentsia. The revolutionary intelligentsia does not, like petty bourgeois intellectuals, try and seduce workers with elaborate ideas about a new society. So clearly, you don't even have a right to be mistaken because I didn't even use the same words. Not only were they not of different contexts, this is further demonstrated by the fact that they weren't the same words.

-

But you do. In a very recent post, for instance, you claim that Five Year Plans' definition of spontaneism is traditionally used in a manner different than his, and claim that his definition is entirely a priori and personal. But you never bothered to explain why your definition is more correct than his. You forget that you're not trying to just convince your opponent, but your audience. Sometimes the onlookers require that a bone be thrown to it.

MEGAMANTROTSKY

Spontaneism was a word that was traditionally leveled against economistic 'radicals', among them I believe were Council Communists. So from their positions we can form a coherent understanding of 'spontaneism' as we do not hold that Lenin's argument was a straw-man. The argument against spontaneism was not about the amount of time it took for them to develop consciousness, rather, that they do not require direction from those theoretically skilled, politically adept intellectuals.

But that doesn't have anything to do with your initial argument, that I won't respond or address his actual argument. He was making a defense of why he contradicted himself, and I shot such defense down as illegitimate. That's not the same as taking things out of context and formulating a straw-man argument, that's not the same as blatantly and intentionally misinterpreting your opponents arguments, because they fit within your constrained presumptions about Marxism and so on.

Then do it, already. You were asked to provide specific places where this happened, and you have yet to do so. I can hazard a guess as to why: You can't.

MEGAMANTROTSKY

You can do this just as easily as I can. Honestly I will admit this is nothing short of my own laziness here. Because of all the posts I made were essentially just that, explanations of specific places where that happened, I just don't find the need to re- quote them and bring them back. I made them and posted them for a reason, I didn't put an expiration date on them.

68

Here's just a few

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...&postcount=107

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...&postcount=111

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...&postcount=112

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...&postcount=114

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...&postcount=114

I'm confident enough that you all know what I'm talking about. If you don't, it's probably because you're being dishonest.

-

With you? Well, propaganda, at some unspecific point, apparently vaporizes into pure air that is then breathed.

Five Year Plan

it is a fresh of breath air because they create ideological presumptions which are then no longer question: Just look at the dichotomy between "big" and "small" government. Is that propaganda, or ideology? It may have originated as propaganda, but proponents then recycle it not because they are dishonest or trying to fool anyone, but because such dichotomy is no longer questioned. That is ideology. Without ideology, propaganda is worthless.

-

I understand the point you are making, and the distinction. My point was that they way you phrased the questions in back-to-back posts made it appear as though you were at cross purposes and contradicting yourself, especially to people who are not already on board with your initial assumptions.

Five Year Plan

It made it seem that way to you, who was not carefully reading the posts to begin with. If you were more careful and mindful, you wouldn't have made such an accusation. This is your problem, don't try to group everyone else in with you here.

-

But no one is doing this - utopian seduction, today.

Or are there some folks? If so, which? All I could think of are Hahnel and Albert but it would be simply grotesque to claim they're trying to propagandize.

LinksRadikal

Well, even if no one actively goes out and seduces workers like this - the point I was trying to make is that the manner in which utopians think workers will adopt their ideas is just that: they think that if they convince workers well enough of the feasibility of their happy society, if they get workers to buy into it a revolution

69

logically follows. And this is a problem usually reserved for 'Communists' (#

:h ammersickle:

) on the internet, most especially this site.

-

At the point an idea is taken for granted, would it makes sense to wax poetic about it being a "breath of fresh air?" After all, don't people generally take notice of breaths of fresh air due to the fact that the air is "fresh," new, and noticeable? I assign this poem a failing grade.

Five Year Plan

So now you want to argue about my 'poetry'? Do you know what poetry is? That isn't poetry, it's a single simile.

Breath of fresh air in that it is natural, it is a given, and so on. Breaths of fresh air are a very common thing - if such presumptions are "new", as they are, then yes it is comparable to a breath of fresh air. They take it in, however, as natural without thinking twice about it, rather than breathing in poison or something that would otherwise be hostile or vicious.

I fail to see what this has to do with anything.

-

Well logically any attack on spontaneism would be an attack on economism: In that agency and will have nothing to do with the development of revolutionary consciousness and such a thing occurs logically as a result of the social condition of the proletarian class without any external guidance.

But yes, you're right, perhaps I was mistaken regarding Council Communists or the dutch Left. I had inferred so, because I believed them to be of an aversion to what they call a "vanguard" (or did they? I am not sure, but I am quite sure that those among the "Left-Wing Communism" camp, well, those sympathetic to them have - I have had little to no interaction with Left Communists of the dutch tradition outside of their sympathizers on this website). Isn't this a common idea among anarchists too? Well perhaps I was wrong in who prescisely Lenin among others were targeting, in attacks on spontaneism, that does not however change the point: Spontaneism does not entail the seamless or abrupt transition to revolutionary consciousness.

70

While as an offical position, I very much doubt that Five Year Plan adheres to Spontaneism. In another thread, he would most likely argue against it. My point is that he would go as far as to defend and make himself a proponent of such concepts (without admitting it, of coarse) for the sole purpose of winning the argument in which he personally, not his ideas, are primarily a part of. He clearly contradicted himself just for the sake of disagreeing with me. That was my point. No one is arguing Trotskyists believe in spontaneity.

Re: Has anyone heard of anti-fascist organization called Millennium?

71

I defend them from my anti-west perspective because I oppose all forms of US/western aggression. Therefor I support the people who reject the new Kiev govt, call them whatever you like.

Where you see a lack of support for "pro-seperatists" I happen to see a few usual suspects whooshing in to express their predictable contempt for whatever group is being demonized in the western press.

adipocere

If anything, Russian interests are more reactionary than the west, Russia stands as a worse threat as it represents a new model of capitalist rule - already in Europe, euroskeptic parties like UKIP and Front National have formed relationships with the Russian state, and let's not forget Orban in Hungary, who is looking eastward to Russia and China. This reactionary trend of national populism, which a la third world reactionary despots has come to Europe. All of these western communists who were so keen in supporting such trends in the third world - the same has come to your homes, and look how keen you are to go in a frenzy about the rise of fascism - this is the SAME Russian, Iranian and Syrian bloc.

Not to say NATO or EU interests should be defended, or supported, but if we're going go play this game of lesser evils, then Russian interests are not even a contender for support. It's ironic that Russia has reassumed the same role it had during the Crimean war - the single most reactionary power in all of Europe.

-

Leftists cannot move freely in Kiev and areas of Euromaidan control without fear of their lives, the Odessa massacre being the most current example. Whilst areas under direct or loose Russian control such as the Donetsk region has heavy mobilizations and agitation through the communist group Borotba. If anything, it is the EU that can no longer rule in the old welfare state way and now relies on selling literally everything to bankers and investors, with right wing ideologies being legitimized to push these reactionary policies through.

Things Make People Happy

You speak of the legitimization of reactionary ideologues throughout European politics, and you are absolutely correct! Remember though - these are the same Euroskeptic parties who endorse Putin, who pledge to forge ties with Russia should they achieve power. Both Le Penn and Farage have spoken of their admiration for Putin and his distinct "style" of rule. It is clearly the prerogative of the Russian state to see to the dismantlement of the European Union, of that there can be no doubt.

The reactionary philistine trends that hold sway across Europe are not the expression of a European zeal - rather they represent the capitalism of Russia and China, perhaps we can call this oriental capitalism. Fascists in Ukraine are pro-

72

European, though only because of the anti-Russian nature of Ukrainian nationalist sediment. No on is arguing for a support of European interests, merely the absolute necessity of recognizing the reactionary nature of the Russian state and it's pawns in Europe. The difference between the two imperialist blocs (Western Europe and the U.S., Russia, China Iran and Syria) is that the possibility of class consciousness is dwarfed by the sheer ideological power of the latter (almost comparable to 20th century Fascism) who unlike the current legitimate global capitalist order (I.e. U.S. hegemony) have offered a false solution to existing conditions, an alternative to American Imperialism and European liberal technocracy, in all it's 'weakness'. They posit themselves as opponents of the existing order of things while at the same time, in their very opposition sustain the global imperialist order.

Let's be quite frank, there is no reason to take for granted our 'politically corrent' 'progressive liberal' societies, I make no apologies when I say proletarian consciousness is infinitely more likely here than in Russia, or the Middle East where the dichotomy is solely on national, religious or ethnic grounds. And that's the danger in Europe, with Front National, the Golden Dawn, Orban in Hungary and so on - The so-called defenders of western civilization and European culture are in effect destroying Europe by trivializing it into another nation-state where issues of class, among other social issues are non-existent and all dichtomony resides with those who support the nation, the affirmative ideology, the master and the cowardly political correct liberals who are undermining the national strength, the slave, the dissenting ideology that serves only to sustain the former. This is the logic of such vulgar, philistine bourgeois politics. This is the barbarism luxemburg had spoken of, and the Communist project in it's current state does not stand a chance. The choice becomes clear, then: A new universal Communist movement that is capable of destroying the ying-yang of Bourgeois Liberalism and Fascism, trivializing it, or this new barbaric capitalism.

73

Re: Soviet anti-relgious propoganda.

Dangerous Minds has a collection of anti-religious propoganda and artwork from Bezbozhnik, a militant atheist magazine from the Soviet Union.

Alot of it really is quite striking, even grotesque. The only problem is that some of the caricatures seem vaguely racist, even anti-Semitic (although most of the magazine's staff were ethnic jews).

Brandon's Impotent Rage

74

I can't say I have any qualms with them.1

Re: Salem Witch Trials as "real" in 2013-

2014 film and television

So I originally planned on writing an essay about this but I'm not up for it at the moment.

Basically, I think it's more than a pattern at this point that four highly popular films and television shows over the last 12 months have been based on the premise that the Salem witch trials were real - i.e., that there were actually witches there.

There's Sleepy Hollow, a show I really like that has a lot of early U.S. mythology going on; The Conjuring, one of the better horror movies that has come out recently, where the main villain-ghost-whatever was an actual baby- sacrificing witch during the trials; American Horror Story, which I'm assuming most of you know about, where the white witches are descended from those of the witch trials; and Salem, a show that just started recently but is pretty good, where actual witches started the witch trials for their own nefarious purposes or some shit like that.

1 I don't see anything particularly antisemitic or racist about the caricatures - sure, they're grotesque, but that was the point. There are some clever touches, like Jesus's halo having an inscription, as is common in Eastern Orthodox depictions. Note that in the picture entitled "Chinese samovar", the Chinese functionaries are depicted as grotesque, but the picture clearly shows ordinary Chinese, depicted in the same way as European workers, being crushed by the statue.

870

75

Okay, maybe that last one isn't that popular, but still, you know the saying, once is happenstance, two is coincidence, three times is enemy action. I don't know what that would make four times but this is definitely a thing.

I have my own theories as to why this is - I think they're all nebulously related to what I think is a pretty marked upsurge of salient feminism at least in the United States, but if anyone else sees other patterns I'd like to hear more theories.

Oh, also, the three villains or antagonists of James Wan's last three directed movies since 2009, which together have grossed about $575m, have been: The Lipstick Demon, the Woman in Black (not that shitty Daniel Radcliffe movie) and the aforementioned Salem witch. I also have to admit I really, really liked Insidious, disliked the sequel less than most people, and The Conjuring has really grown on me over the last six months or so.

synthesis

Common themes conveyed by today's fictional narratives have generally been quasi-New age spiritualism, or ideas brought forth by the religious revival. Things about "faith", blind belief, miracles and so on. Naturally there is definitely a dark side to this, just as the dark side to this new fascination with paganism has fascist implications - completely backward views on PAST events. As though "Hey guys! If this is true, wouldn't that lead us to have a different take on x?". Of course they are not aware of its backward nature, but they do all the same.

Re: tendency?

Just out of curiosity, for what reason do the Sparts support NAMBLA? Are they intentionally trying to assure they receive no support from the populace, or are the only people who join pedophiles?

-

I really shouldn't rise to the bait, but you know the entire "the Spartacist League supports NAMBLA" thing? You know how it began? In the eighties, the FBI carried out a harassment campaign against the NAMBLA organisation. Now, I have seen ostensible socialists praise NSA on this site, but the Spartacist League has no love for cops, and they protested both the state suppression of NAMBLA and the hypocrisy of certain "human rights" groups who would defend Nazis but not NAMBLA.

And thus the myth was started - first it was "Spartacists support NAMBLA" in the sense that they support everything NAMBLA members have written and done. Now it seems that people think the Spartacist League is NAMBLA.

But wait, the Spartacist League also defended the Branch Dravidians against the all-American stormtroopers, so I

76

suppose the SL are also religious now? That is very difficult to reconcile with a literal interpretation of the ICL Declaration of Principles, which bars the actively religious from League membership. But if anyone is skilled with non-literal interpretations, it is the religious.

Oh, and do you want to know who also opposed the FBI assault on NAMBLA? Workers (I still want to know where the apostrophe went) World, the CO of one Workers World Party. It's odd that no one ever baits them on the issue.

870

As if this makes anything excusable, if anything, this only adds insult to injury. Defending reactionaries against the wrath of the bourgeois state... I wonder, would they have defended the Confederacy? Or Neo-Nazis facing persecution from the German state?

And let's not bullshit here, I've read the Spartacists and their explanation of their support for NAMBLA. The entire premise of their defense rests upon the fact that such 'relationships' were consensual. Really what a meaningless thing, as if children are capable of consenting to such a thing, as if the power of an adult, or authority is irrelevant. It's quite sickening actually, and to speak of "bourgeois morality"... Don't they know pedophilia is a logical result of the hypocritical bourgeois sexual morality? For fuck's sake, most pedophiles are to be found in the very guardians of bourgeois sexual morality, the religious clergy. The bourgeois degenerates politically are not to be our allies, and the same applies culturally. And before you all go touting about how this mentality is applicable towards homosexuality, the difference is that homosexuality is so adamantly opposed because it challenges sexual relations, or more specifically gender. The so-called bourgeois cultural repulsion towards pedophilia exists for completely different reasons than it does homosexuality. The Spartacists are reactionaries, vile degenerates.

-

To be fair, I don't think that the issue is that more than a small minority of pedophiles are in the clergy, but that the pedophiles that are in the clergy receive a great deal of protection from the church hierarchy and are thus able to keep reoffending to a much greater extent than pedos without that protection.

synthesis

Of course this isn't the issue, my point is that sexual morality of the existing order provides a hyper sexual erotic dimension to practices it claims to condemn. I would say that the U.S. is largely more hypersexual with all of it's cheap, sleazy sex in culture, than Europe. But where's the Irony? Americans, as far as I'm concerned, have stricter views as far as sexual morality goes. The same goes for the American north and the bible belt: the latter lacks basic sexual education for

77

children, is vehement in it's "sexual morality" and yet is more sleazy, cheap and so on with it's approach to commodified sex. This is the kind of paradox I'm talking about.

-

Isn't your characterization of American sex culture as "cheap and sleazy" evidence of your own bourgeois sexual morality?

Ethics Gradient

I said with all it's cheap sleazy sex in culture, not it's cheap, sleazy sex culture. There is a difference.

Anyway, I couldn't imagine anyone who doesn't see this. The sliminess of this kind of repulsive 80's hypersexualization is not liberating in nature, actually it is the appropriation of 60's sexual liberation by patriarchal values. And you all know very well what I'm talking about. This is not something evident in 'the media' today, but it's definitely something we see in the American south.

Firstly, it should be noted that the ways people, be they youth or otherwise actually conduct themselves sexually in the United States is not "sleazy" or whatever, it's not "decadent". But the way sex is understood, or the way sex is approached in places where sexual morality is more reactionary is infinitely more perverse than in the East Coast, etc. If you don't know what I'm talking about, you probably aren't familiar with the U.S. in general. I mean what, you think I'm trying to play into the whole "AMERICUNS ARE SO DECADENT TOO SEXUAL" bullshit? No, you're not paying attention to what I'm fucking saying, is the problem.

The dichotomy between sexual puritanism, social conservatism and bourgeois hypersexualizaiton is false. They are born of the same mother. To answer your question, no, it isn't fucking evidence. Maybe you should try to put more thought into your baseless attacks, next time.

-

What a sickening thing to see. Now child protection laws are "a violation of privacy"? Yeah! Let's protect the autonomy of the family against the state! It's the right of parents, fathers, to discipline their children however they want. It's none of the state's business. What a sick fuck you are. Have you ever even met anyone working in social services? Have you met anyone in child protection before? Have you ever encountered situations in which they were involved? If anything, my only

78

criticism is that they DO NOT DO ENOUGH as a result of protecting the autonomy of 'the family'. The embryo of communism is within capitalism, it is a CLASS STRUGGLE, not some fucking eternal protest against the world. The bourgeoisie does not always consciously rule in its interests, it's not some fucking conspiracy. You really have no idea how any of this functions, how capitalist relations are reproduced.

The state is not progressive, but it is not REACTIONARY as your religious cults, your Klan is. Quite honestly I don't give a fuck about Guantanamo bay, aside from that many there are wrongfully accused. I'm not so shocked and surprised by the reluctance of the state to abide by its own civic values. And if it did, that would not make it in the least better. Marx called the petite bourgeoisie a reactionary class for a reason - they are a greater enemy than the state and the bourgeoisie, in many ways.

There can be no argument to what I have said before: organizations like the Sparta, and this new kind of politics is inherently petty bourgeois. Not every act by the state is to be opposed. The state is not the ultimate evil, we oppose it BASED ON THE PREMISES now in existence, Communists are not "underground", Communists do not sit outside the parameters of society and the conditions of life. There is very little that separates these new 'Communists' from any reactionary militia, they are cosmetically different, but the way in which they abide is the same. We do not support the autonomy of the 'individual', we support the revolutionary prerogatives of the proletarian class. The petty bourgeoisie, bourgeois degenerates are not our allies. Fascists are not our allies, the reactionaries of France were not our allies, but they opposed the state all the same. And it is the duty of every communist to never defend them from the bourgeois state, those who are "opposing it all" oppose the revolution as well, oppose the communism that formed as a result of capitalist relations.

-

So the Spartacist League, a revolutionary socialist group that has existed since the seventies, are "new Communists", whereas the Cold-War social-democrats in the SPUSA are I suppose "old Communists". "Old" in the sense of "decrepit" - no offense to any old people, I'm a bit of a geezer compared to the age average of this site myself - perhaps.

Now, father Rafiq has graced this thread once again to thunder against us degenerates, us "new Communists" who defend reactionary religious cults in the face of persecution by a state that is - if not progressive - then at least "not

79

as reactionary". Yet father Rafiq, who apparently considers himself the earthly reincarnation of Felix Dzerzhinsky, has apparently not noticed that the Bolsheviks defended the "reactionary" Old Believers against the "not as reactionary" Tsarist state.

I have met people "working" in social services - if you can't see how these people are part of the problem, I have more bad news for you, I'm afraid. But that's neither here nor there. Once again you show you haven't read anything by the SL, including articles where they explicitly state that only consensual sex should be free.

870

Of course they're "new Communsits", of course they represent a Left that has lost its heart, a Left which cosmetically appropriates the carcass of the revolutionary proletarian movement. The Spartacist League is completely, totally, and unquestionably a petty bourgeois organization. There can be no argument there. You think an attack leveled against the SPUSA can somehow discredit me, or cause me harm? As though I am collateral damage? The difference is that I don't pretend the SPUSA isn't a worthless organization that doesn't do shit, the difference is that they aren't a fucking cult. Was it not the Spartacist League that is incredibly intrusive on it's members personal lives? I remember hearing that affairs such as marriages had to be O.K.ed by them. Yes, I don't need to read it's garbage, cliche Trotskyist trash to understand what kind of scum they are. Or could I even call them this, seeing how utterly and totally insignificant they are even by Leftist standards. The New Left is a parody of the deceased revolutionary movement, like a child's take on the wild west, like a Vegas Casino themed antiquity.

I am young, perhaps younger than you, this is not an issue of age, but of our legacy as Communists. The Old Believers were not some reactionary backwoods, child abusing cult, they constituted a cultural and social phenomena, they were a cultural group. Whatever defense the Bolsheviks had given them, is in no way comparable to a defense of the Ku Klux Klan, among other reactionary organizations. What is comparable, perhaps, is opposition against Islamophobia, and so on. The bourgeois state represented by the hegemony of the U.S. in it's existing, longlasting form is not reactionary. Capitalism is not reactionary, there exist several reactionary states (I.e. In the Middle East among other places), there exists several reactionary trends as a result of such hegemony, there exist a phenomena of reactionary ideological degeneracy, but these always take the appearance of being in opposition to the state - only as contenders for world capitalist hegemony. The hegemonic bourgeois state and capitalist relations as it exists is not reactionary or progressive because Communism arises from the

80

premises now in existence. And you're dead fucking wrong about Confederacy, by the way, both Marx and Engels had made the clear distinction between the Bourgeoisie and the southern slave-owning class as two, separate different classes. Not only did they not defend the Confederacy from the wrath of the bourgeois state, they adamantly and wholly supported the bourgeois state in their endevour, as a matter of fact many Communists had joined the union army.

This is exactly what I was fucking talking about when I spoke of the petty bourgeois Left parties - solidarity with the petite bourgeoisie as a class, who constantly must defend themselves from the coming hoards of modernity. Oh, let's abolish public schools! Children are property of their parents, they have to consent to go to public schools and to be a part of society rather than locked away within their antisocial philistine family's clutches, of course they can totally make such a choice, right? As a matter of fact, women who stay with their abusive husbands have made the choice to stay, it's no one else's business. The state has no business intervening in cases of domestic violence all together, right? And where does it end? Why don't you all just be honest, throw down your hats and declare your solidarity with the petty bourgeois class, whose small businesses are shutting down as a result of federal harassment as well as the power of the big bourgeoisie and monopolies, let's defend the petty bourgeois scum like Clive Bundy too, yeah? It would be totally fucking consistent, the only thing stopping them from such declarations of support is that they have to keep the facade, the cosmetic style of being a revolutionary party

Oh and the trotting of "consensual sex" only furthers to reveal the bourgeois ideologues of the Spartacists, if not plain, mere and whole apologia for pedophilia. WE DO NOT SUPPORT phenomena because it is "consensual", whole mass scale injustices ARE ALWAYS consensual, else they would not last a day! Slaves consented to being enslaved, worker's consented, by signing contracts to working for an hourly wage, and so on. IT'S FUCKING MEANINGLESS. As I said before, countless, countless fucking times, free choice is not grounds for impunity, consent is not merit for acceptability. Especially with regard to children, whose magnitude of choice is literally fucking shaped by the adults around them. The Sparts do not form their position out of genuine support for teens defying the bourgeois morality by engaging in sex with each other, their position is formed as a result of their

81

sympathy with child molesters and pedophiles, who are just as marginalized, just as excluded from the premises now in existence as they are. The Communists have always opposed such sexual relationships of domination and grotesque abuse, even their opposition towards homosexuality rested in it's erroneous association with pederasty and pedophilia. 2

-

Autonomy means being uncoerced and regulating and governing ones own life. It also extents to both psychological and physical aspects of being.

So you can easilly see how completely stupid your assertion that my argument comes down to protecting family authority. What a fucking joke you are.

PhoenixAsh

I don't give a fuck about your cliche, weak and worthless ideological rhetoric. I don't give a fuck about your attempted "definition" of autonomy. Rhetoric expresses a real class interest, and you, Pheonix, have demonstrated to everyone that autonomy for you means something entirely different than the autonomy of Anarchists. What does autonomy mean? Autonomy for the family against the state. Words as freedom, liberty, these are all meaningless. Their meaning is derived from their real application to real social phenomena, and in your case, you stand

2 And so, Rafiq, the internet hardman, the r-r-revolutionary Marxist of the caesarotsipraist persuasion, the SPUSA member, is revealed to be a common Menshevik. Lister to this: capitalism is not reactionary, nonetheless there are reactionary states. Perhaps, then, these states need some "capitalist development", courtesy of some local Maysky or Zhordania - or some "nice" form of capitalism, contrary to "reactionary capitalism", presided over by some proletarian Kaiser, pardon, Kaisar.

And yes, father Rafiq, the Old Believers were pretty much a backwoods cult, although there were prominent Old Believer industrial-capitalist families. Therefore - Old Believers are bourgeois degenerates and Lenin and Bonch-Bruevich (not to mention Dzerzhinsky himself) were bourgeois degenerates for defending them against the "not reactionary" Tsarist state.

The rest of your post is predictably hilarious. Of course communists do not fight for communism because of some abstract idea of "freedom", which is why we do not support the doomed petite bourgeoisie when it comes to their economic fortunes (but father Rafiq, are you not yourself part of a group that supports the petite-bourgeoisie and their supposed need for a big, strong, macho Leader?), but at the same time we don't want to end up in some social-Stalinist concentration camp run by the likes of Rafiq and others I could mention. We recognise that the revolution has democratic as well as socialist tasks.

The rest is, again, against the rules of this site, although predictably no administrative action has been taken since it is alright for one side of the debate to bait the other, apparently, but not for the other side to respond to slander.

Oh, and I don't think you could cite instances of the SL intruding on the personal lives of members. How could you, since you've admitted yourself that you haven't read anything by them?

870

82

for the autonomy and freedom of the petite bourgeoisie.

exactly. Now I know you have an hard on for the state and state repression. So I am not too much surpised by your attitude and knee jerk reaction.

PhoenixAsh

According to Pheonix, the state has no business interfering with regard to issues of the family and domestic violence. Now this would otherwise simply sound like some stupid moral declaration, but what does this really mean? it means that in cases of child abuse, domestic violence and so forth, Pheonix would absolutely oppose any intervention on behalf of the state. When philistines speak about, for example, a married couple in which the husband is abusive, they say "It's their business, not ours, they can sort it out themselves". As though the playing field is equal with regard to such a situation, as if battered wife syndrome doesn't exist. And to speak of such a thing with regard to children!

You truly are a sick fuck. A reactionary petite bourgeois ideologue. In cases in which the petite bourgeoisie attempts to exercise its power in opposition to the authority of the bourgeois state, let them burn, let them face the full wrath of the bourgeois state.

So my argument that people should have complete autonomy...you know...being free agents...free from ANY form of infringement on their autonomy and that laws should be about protecting autonomy from infringement is sick?

Yes. Making any form of sense is not your strong point here.

PhoenixAsh

No, shut the fuck up, that doesn't mean anything. "Complete autonomy" can mean a thousand different things, what is the real societal, or social application to such a thing? Such a worthless, abstract declaration. The reality of course is that saying "people should have complete autonomy" with regard to issues of the state protecting children from abuse, or infringing on the 'rights of the father', means complete autonomy for the oppressor. When reactionaries in the Middle East speak of national or religious autonomy, they mean autonomy for the clerics, for the patriarchal men. What a worthless person you are. You are of absolutely no intellectual value whatsoever, there is nothing useful you could ever possibly contribute to any discussion.

Yes. Frequently. Have you? Since you are making this argument you have no idea how the state works against social services being actually effective and usually cause more harm than they solve. In fact social services in the US place children in the care of KNOWN criminals and people who neglect children. And in the Netherlands complete and utter incompetence often fails to effectively protect children at all.

PhoenixAsh

83

And this is only a result of the state's inability to utilize it's full power to protect children, they are interested in reinforcing the same family structure that had led to such abuse. The point not that they are doing too much, but not enough.

Consciously or not ...it does rule in its interest. Your argument that it doesn't is extremely petit-bourgeois.

PhoenixAsh

Yes, it does rule in it's interest, that doesn't however mean every action taken by the state is to be opposed for the fuck of it. You're a coward and a dishonest piece of shit, Phoenix. In attempting to exert their interests as a class, at times the petite bourgeoisie, who stand more of a threat against the revolution than the ruling class, are weakened.

I quite agree that you are a great class enemy of the working class as the bourgeois stooge that you are. So no contest from me here.

Evil? So you are bringing further petit-bourgeois moralism into the debate? Next we will be hearing about the divine virtues of capitalism you sick fuck.

Evil has nothing to do with it. And if you do not comprehend that the state is the ultimate expression of the ruling class and serves its interest then I am actually wondering why the fuck you even call yourself a revolutionary because you aren't one. Go vote for your next social democrat party to alleviate the wrongs in the system because quite obviously that is all the system needs according to your completely reactionary diatribe here.

State and law in the bourgeois context are property based and regulatory infringments on autonomy in order to create a system of privileges granted and retracted based on enforcing class moralism over another class.

PhoenixAsh

It is not I who speaks of evil, but you, Pheonix. Just as the Sparts, and other Left petite bourgeois ideologues such as yourself speak on behalf of those petite bourgeois classes, not openly, not directly, but such support bleeds through the veil of such worthless rhetoric. You talk of moralism, bu there is no one more embedded in self-entitled, privileged moralism than yourself. Under the guise of the organic opposition towards the state any revolutionary possesses, you stand in opposition towards the state on behalf of the petite bourgeoisie. That's the difference. As radicals we oppose the state for completely different reasons than do the reactionaries, and for that purpose we do not oppose attempts made by the state to squash reactionaries.

Jesus fucking christ. Are you on something? What the fuck dude? Seriously? parameters of society and the conditions of life.

Besides sounding completely ridiculous here you sound like a fucking 70's life science book.

84

The parameters of society are formed by the system of class domination (in this case capitalism) you fucking tool. So you want to live in that and preserve that? could you be any more clueless?

PhoenixAsh

It's so cute how you think you can actually have a go at me. As though you actually stand a chance, you, some piece of shit internet pseudo anarchist? I yawn, Phoenix, at your aggression. I am not even dissapointed, just qutie bored, you make it as though I'm fucking clueless, as if I don't know what you're talking about, as if I've never encountered someone exactly like you before, as if I haven't done this again, and again, and again, and fucking again. Do you think you're original? Do you really, really fucking think you can lecture me on the machinations of the state and the nature of the bourgeois dictatorship? For fuck's sake, your conception of the bourgeois dictatorship is entirely emotional, simplistic, worthless. It's meaningless rhetoric. Rather than being able to form a coherent, consistent and scientific understanding of the nature of the state and exising social relations, you speak of "domination" and "bossing every1 around lol dey r in power! omg my freedom!". Class society has exited for thousands of years, none of this is unique to existing conditions. You create this moral dichotomy, whether you acknowledge that it is moralistic or not, in which all that is 'bad' is the state, because they infringe on your 'autonomy', because they stand in the way of your 'freedom' and try to 'control the worker's'. And then, another libertarian scum can talk of how the Communists are trying to infringe on their 'autonomy' and 'freedom' to own property, to 'start up a business', to 'have a family', and so on. Why is your rhetoric superior? In arguing with such a person, the only question is a moral one, the only argument is a semantic one. They are both worthless and provide no meaningful insight into anything.

So sit the fuck down, shut the fuck up, and stop trying to make it as if I have no notion of how you petite bourgeois ideologues view things. I do.

O you mean in the sense that you aren't seperated that much from social democrats?

PhoenixAsh

Is this how you address my argument? Even if we assume, I had anything to do with social democrats, even if that could ever be inferred, even if it wasn't something only a fucking child could say, let's assume I am a social democrat. Does that address my argument? Does that make it less true? No, you know I'm fucking right. The only thing you can resort to is meaningless name calling, as there can be no argument with regard to the fact that both the New Left, and

85

reactionary militias in the United States suckle the same ideological teet, they are born of the same mother and speak the same tongue. The capitalist mode of production had experienced dramatic changes following the second world war, and indeed there were many intellectuals who understood the nature of things well, but organizations like the Sparts - the bastard spawn of the failure of the petty bourgeois student movement had produced a dead Left. Following these dramatic changes was a reaction in the name of the nation, in the name of 'freedom' and 'autonomy' against the growing power of the state. Hence the rise in popularity of trash like Orwell's 1984 and philistine conspiracy theories.

Orly? Well...I am. You aren't. You are a state propping liberal with a petit-bourgeois mentality getting a hard on for preserving capitalist society and the resulting conditions of life.

So trying to pass yourself as a "we" here is totally out of order.

but we are not fighting for the prerogative of the proletariat. We strive for the elimination of class society through the destruction of bourgeois class and all its expressions such as the state and their legal system.

You ofcourse have already explained more than enough that you want to both mainatain their state and their legal system. So how you can even begin to argue that you want the revolutionary prerogative of the proletariat is beyond the grasp of any revolutionary here.

You can keep your "communism" you fucking state collaborator.

/persiflage of Rafiq.

PhoenixAsh

Persistently you have accused me of being a 'state collaborator' or a supporter of the bourgeois state. Comparitvely, the forefathers of what would become European Fascism following the Bolshevik revolution had accused the Communists of Russia of being pawns of some kind of internaitonal banking conspiracy. The Bolsheviks, who were the full expression of the apocalypse against the existing order, against the bourgeois state, were accused by reactionaries of being defenders of some global order. Why? These reactionaries had 'opposed' the existing bourgeois state, they 'opposed' the 'existing order', we must come to several conclusions:

1. Their conception of the existing order of things was wholly different from that of the Communists, on an ideological level.

86

2. The very nature of their opposition was different, while the Bolsheviks were trying to build a new world from the premises that had existed, such reactionaries had opposed such premises entirely, opposed all forms of progress capitalism had brought forward in it's destruction of the feudal order and the establishment of civic values.

So why do I bring this up? You may not be a Fascist, but you are a reactionary. You may claim to oppose the state as it is, but such opposition has nothing to do with any radical prerogative. Like those reactionaries who had accused the Bolsheviks of being agents of the international banks, because they fought viciously and tirelessly against reactionaries of whom were a common enemy to both the bourgeoisie and themselves, you accuse me of being a 'state collaborator' because I recognize you for what you are. And I am flattered that you would accuse me of such a thing, it is a high honor, just as it was a grandiose honor for Lenin to have been called a bourgeois statist by anarchists, and an anarchist by the bourgeoisie.

***

How you like them apples?

I think that went quite well. I think I have your lingo down to a tee. Maybe a little rough around the edges. But you get the message.

PhoenixAsh

What a worthless and predictable person you are. I can just imagine how accomplished you felt after you were finished with your post, perhaps you had a smile on your face, perhaps you had a sense of victory flowing through your veins, your heart beating excessively, a raging erect penis tearing through your pants. Thinking to yourself, "I sure showed him! That'll teach him!".

The only problem is that, I say this in complete, total and whole honesty, argument aside, everything aside, your post was not only wrong (This is almost a given), it was profoundly stupid. I'm not just saying this to insult you, I literally cannot imagine how stupid you would have to be to actually post this, and pass that as an actual contending argument against mine. I think I've told this to others before, I don't think you could ever insult me the way you did in person, so why do it over the internet? Do you really think that your ideologically drenched garbage could

87

ever pose a threat to the power of Marxism? But I don't even believe you believe the shit you spew, Phoenix. I think you are really a petite bourgeois ideologue who struggles to find consistency with radical revolutionary rhetoric, and at all times is bombarded by the real cosmetic ideology of your class brethren.

You're just a worthless reactionary piece of shit, I literally wipe my ass with your fucking posts, they're not at the least bit insightful. Try again, Phoenix.

-

O and Rafiq. Do you know which group was the only other group legally obligatd to register with local and state law enforcement akin to child sex offender registration acts?

Ow...right...communists.

And do you know the single most excuse for home invasion against activists in Europe and seizure of electronic equipment and detainment?

Ow...right...suspicion of child porn.

PhoenixAsh

Yes, indeed, that's totally grounds for solidarity with child molesters. The child sex offenders have become a new and distinct revolutionary class whose interests are concurrent with that of the revolutionary proletariat. The sinister, legal machinations of the bourgeois state have prevented them from fondling children, in a way that is comparable to the legal machinations preventing the proletariat from actualizing true, total autonomy. Joining this new revolutionary popular front are the women-beaters as well as rapists, who face similar problems. Freedom, here we come!

And of course Russia isn't using child protection acts to crack down on homosexuality at all. And isn't passing its anti-LGBTQ laws under the guise of protecting the children from sexual corruption. Nor dos it use these law to arrest activists for LGBTQ rights.

Nope. Doesn't happen.

PhoenixAsh

Indeed, the implications of this is that we must support actual child rapists in their endeavors to defend themselves against the state, full autonomy to child molesters!

88

89

The Petty Bourgeois Ideologues [2]

And so, Rafiq, the internet hardman, the r-r-revolutionary Marxist of the caesarotsipraist persuasion, the SPUSA member, is revealed to be a common Menshevik. Lister to this: capitalism is not reactionary, nonetheless there are reactionary states. Perhaps, then, these states need some "capitalist development", courtesy of some local Maysky or Zhordania - or some "nice" form of capitalism, contrary to "reactionary capitalism", presided over by some proletarian Kaiser, pardon, Kaisar.

And yes, father Rafiq, the Old Believers were pretty much a backwoods cult, although there were prominent Old Believer industrial-capitalist families. Therefore - Old Believers are bourgeois degenerates and Lenin and Bonch- Bruevich (not to mention Dzerzhinsky himself) were bourgeois degenerates for defending them against the "not reactionary" Tsarist state.

870

As a result of 870's predictable inability to address, confront or challenge the inarguable truth with regard to his own petty bourgeois intellectual foundations, he would instead of defending the attacks made against him, attempt to in his own cute little way vivisect me.

caesarotsipraist persuasion, the SPUSA member,

870

870 calls my Marxism distinctly "Caesarotspsiprast" as other users have slandered me in similar ways. It is difficult to respond to, as he pulled it directly out of his ass. I challenge him to find, dig up posts of mine that would in any way indicate I am follower of Tspiprast or a Caesarean socialist. He cannot. We can see clearly how appeals to fantasy are his only means at trying to retain any sort of legitimacy here. 870 attempts to paint me with a brush he pulled out of his ass, according to him I am a reformist, according to him my politics are concurrent with that of the SPUSA's. I have countlessly spoken of my opposition to the politics of the SPUSA, and that of it's members - that my own membership was simply a result of my desire for discussion with leftists outside of the internet. Why then, while knowing this, does the apologist and mouthpiece of politicized pedophilia resort to such petty slander and baseless attacks? Well, a simple look at the post I made is evidence enough of the fact that my points go unchallenged. http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...&postcount=256 This cultist rodent seriously, honestly and wholly believes he can challenge the impenetrable, invincible and merciless truth of Marxism with his crypto-role playing petty bourgeois rhetoric. While deciphering and exposing their petite bourgeois ideological tendencies, like cornered rats they can only resort to what appears to be vicious attacks. And let them, they are rats all the same.

90

And what is the nature of such worthless rhetoric?

And yes, father Rafiq, the Old Believers were pretty much a backwoods cult, although there were prominent Old Believer industrial-capitalist families. Therefore - Old Believers are bourgeois degenerates and Lenin and Bonch- Bruevich (not to mention Dzerzhinsky himself) were bourgeois degenerates for defending them against the "not reactionary" Tsarist state.

870

Contrary to the reactionary, degenrate postmodern petty bourgeois cults of whom organizations like the Sparts aim their support, the Old Believers were not a 'backwoods cult'. They were a religious minority that had existed since the 17th century who had faced persecution by the Tsarist church, who were in themselves an entity waiting to be politicized. This is quite different from American militias, which formed as a response to further capitalist development and the evolution of liberalism. In all his philistine ignorance, he attempts to make an analogous connection to the Russian equivalent of the protestant movement to anti social, reactionary petty bourgeois cults. It is no wonder, though. He is after all a member of the Spartacist League, which are themselves a cult of the same nature, a la Jim Jones. A quick Google search on the nature of the Spartacit League would reveals this to everyone. But of course 870 desperately attempts to make it as though such an accusation is leveled without base, as if I'm pulling it out of my ass. No, it is very well known that they are a cult, and even those who refuse to label them as such recognize they have frightening cultish tendencies. The Spartacist league, a mere postmodern club, is organized and structured to sustain the membership of those few of 'advanced' consciousness, i.e. Students who think of Communism is a trend and so on. Does he honestly, truly believe this organization could ever exist as a mass movement? Or does he take comfort in knowing they will never achieve legitimacy, so he can hide safely within the confines of their eternal opposition and protest against the 'external' world. Only within the confines of this little 'society' or club are it's members safe from the 'excesses of bourgeois propaganda' and the 'poison' of capitalist society, Communism for then does not derive from existing conditions, with bourgeois society as a presupposition for it's own development, for them Communism is the name they gave their petite bourgeois opposition to liberalism, which is reactionary in nature. A proletarian opposition to liberalism, conversely, recognizes that the achievements of liberalism are the presumption of it's own emancipation. Of course 870, with his philistine, childish way of thinking, will dismiss this as apologia of liberalism, perhaps he himself will accuse me of being a 'liberal' and tie this in with his ridiculous, baseless accusations of

91

reformism (Is this not the pinnacle of ridiculousness, me, a reformist?). Of course we cannot expect him to admit to his own stupidity, to his own intellectual worthlessness. So let him bark like the petty bourgeois dog he is, let him bathe in his own ideological filth. He is a philistine, he will never understand what I'm talking about.

Let us, however, address some of the proclamations made forth by this theoretically adept Marxist

is revealed to be a common Menshevik. Lister to this: capitalism is not reactionary, nonetheless there are reactionary states. Perhaps, then, these states need some "capitalist development", courtesy of some local Maysky or Zhordania - or some "nice" form of capitalism, contrary to "reactionary capitalism", presided over by some proletarian Kaiser, pardon, Kaisar.

870

Ha, he got me! Of course Menshevism is distinguished by the acknowledgement of the existence of reactionary states! Damn, what a knot I am in now! I wonder how I'll get out of this one!

Such stupidity is beyond shocking. I begin to wonder whether I should give up entirely, whether I should let him actually go on believing this is a feasible argument. Then again, I cannot but admit I derive great enjoyment from thinking of read, powerlessly, of his own invalidity.

We cannot begin to decipher the contradictions of his post here. First, 870 accuses me of being a Third World Caesarean socialist. He then accuses me of being a Menshevik or a "reformist". However the whole point of DNZ formulating Third World Caesarean socialism was to solve the problem of socialism existing in backward, semi-feudal states without resorting to reformism or capitalist development. Whether this is correct or not is a different question, but we must assume that 1. He has no idea of what DNZ was trying to say 2. He has no notion of what being a Menshevik actually means or both - Perhaps he is fully aware that he is contradicting himself, perhaps this is a sort of desperation for him.

Can we even begin to reveal the complete irony that a fucking Trotskyist would accuse me of Menshevism? Trotsky, who was himself a Menshevik at heart until his death? Trotsky, whose Menshevism was completely and wholly present in his initial opposition to Stalin, in his liberalist intellectual foundations? The same Trotsky who was a Menshevik until it was opportune to join the champions of

92

legitimacy?

But let us return to the root of the point, recognizing the existence of reactionary states, especially in this globalized capitalist order, according to 870, entails a sort of Menshevism. By this logic, Lenin himself was a Menshevik, who recognized more than anyone that compared to Western Europe, the Tsarist state was infinitely reactionary. All states which stand in opposition to the globalized development of capitalism and the hegemonic liberal order, from Iran to Milosevic's Serbia, from Saddam to North Korea, are wholly and distincitively reactionary states. They stand as the reactionaries existent within this global community of capitalist states.

While the Communists and reactionaries oppose hegemonic liberalism, there is a difference that Kautsky recognized (that Lenin wholly concurred with). While the proletariat opposes Liberalism, the proletariat opposes Liberalism while pre- supposing the achievements of Liberalism and capitalist development in it's struggle for emancipation. Such reactionary states, as well as the petty bourgeois classes of which 870, that cultist little shit identifies with, oppose the hegemonic order as reactionaries, who seek a revert to the 'old' times, in the case of the existing reactionary states like Russia, a more 'nationally independent' world, or in the case of petty bourgeois organizations like the Sparts, the 'good old times' when Communism still held legitimacy. They shun and despise the world as it has existed today, and seek to replicate tactics and strategies of a previous world, ideology which has no place in the world today. Hence their support for marginalized groups like NAMBLA, hence their support for reactionary militias.

But how can a worthless reactionary like 870 justify support for pedophiles if not by saying "READ DERR STUFF". I Don't need to read the texts of the ICLFLKSDJFLKSJDF-FL, this worthless Trotskyist sect among countless others, to know what they are. Fuck you for thinking that's worth anyone's time. These 'meta' ideological Communists, these 'cosmetic' reds, these reactionaries. What makes them different from any other reactionary militia? Absolutely nothing.

The rest of your post is predictably hilarious. Of course communists do not fight for communism because of some abstract idea of "freedom", which is why we do not support the doomed petite bourgeoisie when it comes to their economic fortunes (but father Rafiq, are you not yourself part of a group that supports the petite-bourgeoisie and their supposed need for a big, strong, macho Leader?), but at the same time we don't want to end up in some social-Stalinist concentration camp run by the likes of Rafiq and others I could mention. We recognise that the revolution has democratic as well as socialist tasks.

93

870

Look at how he speaks, he has no notion of the function of ideology, he cosmetically attempts to separate himself from the petite bourgeoisie by saying they are 'doomed', that in his fantasy revolution they will have no place. As Althusser has said, ideology does not say "I am ideology", and petite bourgeois ideologues does not say "I am a petite bourgeois ideologue". You can say whatever the fuck you want, you can fantasize about all of these abstract, baseless and worthless scenarios, but the truth is that you do so as a petite bourgeois ideologue who sympathizes with a petite bourgeois organization, a cult at best. It's so cute how you spout this so-called "Marxism", it's so cute how you tout the same nonsense any other New Left piece of shit boy scout does. You're worthless, 870. You're better off apolitical, and I mean that from the bottom of my heart.

The difference with DNZ, by the way, is that rather than espousing petite bourgeois ideological rhetoric, he recognizes very adamantly of an alliance between the proletariat and the demographically dominant rural petty bourgeoisie cemented through a strong executive power in places where the proletariat is a demographic minority. But he recognizes this as petty bourgeois, he thinks strategically. And is this not the same thing the Bolsheviks had attempts to do, albeit without recognizing it? DNZ recognizes it for what it is.

But I dare you, you piece of shit, I dare you to go and find a single post made by me that would imply I strive for a "Big strong macho leader". All you're good for is touting baseless nonsense, these stupid stereotypical archetypes formulated by your own cult like understanding of Communism. What a waste of time you are.

Oh, and I don't think you could cite instances of the SL intruding on the personal lives of members. How could you, since you've admitted yourself that you haven't read anything by them?

870

Is this something they would broadcast and reveal to the 'external' world? Are you denying that the Spartacist League infringes on the personal lives of it's members, and has a hand in things such as marriage?

3

3 “...This cultist rodent seriously,...they are rats all the same...In all his philistine ignorance...his philistine, childish way of thinking...his own stupidity, to his own intellectual worthlessness. So let him bark like the petty bourgeois dog he is, let him bathe in his own ideological filth. He is a philistine, he will never understand what I'm talking about...Such stupidity is beyond shocking...a worthless reactionary ...this worthless Trotskyist sect...Fuck you for thinking that's worth anyone's time...you tout the same nonsense any other New Left piece of shit boy scout does. You're worthless, 870...you piece of shit...What a waste of time you are.”

94

-

But instead of conveying frustration, it appears PhoenixAsh, this quasi-anarchist worm is only good for inducing laughter.

*Anarchism holds that individual autonomy means that no other individual can have a hierarchical position over another and that individuals need to be protected from those who want to asssert hierarchical domination over others.

*Your insane diatribe that this is trumping the family's domination over children is a profound misunderstanding of the concept of autonomy and of the actual arguments which I am making.

*In fact it results in you defending the legal system which actually does trump the bourgeois family and propp laws which actually do ensure children are in fact property of the parents.

PhoenixAsh

Although I had countless times before addressed this, actually, almost all of this whole post, let us do it again so this time, he'll perhaps think twice before recycling the same nonsense. If anything, Phoenix really has no idea whatsoever of how you cannot understand ideological tendencies by their self proclamations. He attempts to school me by, as if I'm fucking new to this, about the anarchist identity and what anarchists profess to think of their own politics. It's wholly abstract, it's worthless, it's just as worthless as saying you're "pro-freedom" or "pro-liberty". What does this really mean, applicably? for him, it means a defense of petty bourgeois values against the excesses of hegemonic state-liberalism, as expressed by his positions with regard to issues of the family and the role of the state. Now of course the bourgeois state protects the family, of course the bourgeois state attempts to reinforce the rule of the father, by means of the police among other organs. Of that there can be no doubt - that does not however mean there does not exist a reaction. The petite bourgeois ideologues ground their opposition to the state with regard to the family, because they hold that the state has no business in the family (just as they have no business with regard to their property) the family that had formed as a result of the social relationships to production, rather than the decrees of the state. Communists oppose the state because it does too much to defend the bourgeois family, it does not violate the 'autonomy' of the father enough.

And who the fuck are you to define such a vague word like 'autonomy'? Why is your definition supreme? It is not. Your politics are worthless, they are incoherent

It is always good to see reasoned political discusion rather than personal abuse.

Devrim

95

and meaningless. They are whatever the fuck you want them to be, they have no grounding in reality and can only existing in your abstract fantasy like scenarios. They are the veil which guises your petty bourgeois ideological foundations.

* Hugely ironic is that your attack on me as being petit-bourgeois is based on defending the concepts and morality of exactly that class: the petit-bourgeois. Not realizing the legal concepts originated there as well.

PhoenixAsh

Phoenix, explain to me, even if these arguments are moral in nature, explain to me how precisely they are petite bourgeois. Phoenix does what most of the Left likes to do, he likes to utilize the word as a mere fucking slander with absolute no meaning. "The morality of exactly that class", he speaks! What cack! What utter nonsense! I grow very tired and bored of this unending bullshit, I profess I cannot even find a single thing in your whole post which contains an ounce of truth. As I told 870, abstain from politics Phoenix, you have no place in it. But even with more hilarity do we find his insightful declaration, that the laws of the bourgeois state have their origin in the interests and ideological values of the petite bourgeoisie.

* And even more ironic is your inclusion of my arguments stemming from morality when you are the one heavilly relying on morality yourelf in order to facilitate your attack on me. I have however never mentioned morality in any other sense than that bourgeois legal systems enforce petit-bourgeois and bourgeois morality and serve to enforce class society.

PhoenixAsh

The poverty of Pheonix's intellectual politics is that he genuinely believes we can only accuse him of moralism if he openly declares that it is moralistic. Anarchism itself is entirely moralistic, I don't give a fuck of you recognize it or acknowledge it yourself, your opposition to the state and your apologia for pedophilia is completely and wholly moralistic. Do you even know what morals are? We 'ought' to be this, we 'ought' to be that. We oppose the bourgeois state, but only while presuming it's achievements in our own struggle. Conversely the petite bourgeoisie will oppose them, from the perspective of the reactionaries.

*Your assertion that not every action of the state should be opposed is questionable at best. But since I am not opposing actions of the state but the concept of the state and its legal system themselves make these arguments completely redundant and straw man arguments.

*Your argument, or at least your allusion, that challeging the state and its expressions is not revolutionary and in fact petit-bourgeois does make one wonder here what your actual revolutionary position is. So me arguing against class society and all its expressions and actually arguing against bourgeois and petit-bourgeois mentality is petit- bourgeois? When you yourself make a shiny case glorifying the state.

PhoenixAsh

Oh yes, and how is to questionable? You have absolutely no conception of

96

revolutionary politics, you have absolutely no notion of the character of the petite bourgeois class. What you also lack, unsurprisingly, is a coherent understanding of my argument in the first place. No one is criticizing you for challenging the state, the point is from what perspective, and in what way. Declaring that you oppose the petite bourgeoisie does not make you any less petty bourgeois.

* You are actually arguing for the state to wield more power against society. Of course you do this under the exuse of protecting children. You know...by the very same state which has no problems what so ever to allow exploitation of children, having them starve to death, bombing the shit out of them or subjecting them to incarceration and arbitrarily deciding they are actually adults when they consider a crime big enough.

PhoenixAsh

Phoenix is actually arguing that he is making no moral arguments here. This right here is precisely petite bourgeois morality.

* You are also glorifying capitalism and the capitalist state. Because you know...not everything they do is bad. Really? Nobody said that. I know bourgeois class memembers who spend a considerable amount of their fortune gained through the exploitation of others (including children btw) towards charity. I know those who build schools (on land which their companies has poisoned) to repair some social wrongs (like those resulting from wars they support or withholding medical aid because it isn't profitable and such). Those actions aren't bad. That however doesn't mean we do not oppose the bourgeois class.

PhoenixAsh

And finally, this is the most ridiculous argument of all. Among the things that are not to be opposed from the excesses of capitalist development, charity is not one of them. Charity is the reproduction and legitimization of oppression and the gross filth and poverty brought forth by existing relations. You seem to only be able to catagorize or understand things in terms of philistine morality, "charity" and "doing good". No, the point is that for example, when the state legalizes abortion this is not to be opposed, when the state creates laws against domestic abuse and violence, when the state is forced to create laws entailing women's rights, these are not to be opposed. There are many actions taken by the state which are opposed by the petty bourgeois reactionaries, opposing the state's actions simply for the sake of opposing the existence of the bourgeois state is wholly childish.

-

It is always good to see reasoned political discusion rather than personal abuse.

Devrim

It is reasoned political discussion, such personal attacks are only necessary in a discussion which constituted a complete personal attack against me. If anything, it is I which desperately attempts to create a reasoned political discussion out of the slanderous pile of nonsense leveled against me by the noted users.

And to be sure, this isn't about 'getting the last word' in. The thread was closed, and

97

the discussion pertained to the nature of petite bourgeois ideology as well as the nature of Communist opposition towards the state. Now you can call me out for flaming and so on, and not engaging in respectful discussion, but as a discussion it is perfectly appropriate for the theory forum. The only thing that seems to be bothering people is the lack of respectful engagement here. I'm also arguing logically against the attacks put forward against me, of course I'm going to be frustrated. Not that I wish to make a big deal out of any of this, it's not as though I'm putting so much effort to make myself appear a certain way. I type, and as evident from my grammatical errors I do not revise much.

-

Rafiq, the old thread was closed for a reason. Do you remember what it was? Why start a new thread for the purpose of continuing the discussions that were taking place in that thread?

Five Year Plan

The thread was closed because it was rather dramatic and almost completely about age of consent laws. This discussion, however, pertains to the petty bourgeois Left and the nature of proletarian opposition towards the bourgeois state vs. the opposition of the Petite Bourgeoisie.

-

What makes the multitude of Spart cults, petty bourgeois in character?

Tim Cornelis

It's an interesting topic in general. What I have put forward is that not only the Sparts, but a great bulk of the Left as it exists, post 68 is petty bourgeois in character. Since the early 20th century Marxists have spoken of the nature of the Petite Bourgeoisie's opposition to the hegemonic order, and that it is wholly reactionary. Kautsky had something useful to say about it which I think is just too relevant http://www.unz.org/Pub/KautskyKarl-1927-00157.

Basically, the Sparts among others are stuck in an ideological limbo - the present conditions are unable to host their ideological universe, as a result of this new capitalist development and further evolution of liberalism, and the logical result is to, as Kautsky had said, "retrace their steps". A great bulk of the Left today is then reactionary, in the same nature that the petite bourgeoisie is reactionary. They do not oppose the existing order from the premises now in existence, they oppose the existing order while seeking to revert from it's 'excesses'. As Camatte had himself believed directly, the class struggle to them had taken a new form by which it is simply a struggle between humanity and the existing order.

98

-

lol@ everyone hovering over this thread waiting for shit to completely kick off. This thread should be closed, it is a bait thread, it could have been a PM, it was intentionally not made for any type of constructive discussion.

Mari3L

I had considered sending a private message, but I see no reason for this discussion to be limited between us. The harsh nature of my posts does not mean there is nothing meaningful to learn or discuss here.

4

Re: the antisemitism of famous socialists

It's so hilarious how users here define anti-semitism as prejudice or lack of political correctness towards Jews. That's not anti semitism. Lizard conspiracy theories are more anti Semitic than anything Marx has ever said. Anti semitism is an ideological archetype, a psychological condition, it is distinctively a form of paranoia. Blood libels, conspiracy theories, that Jews are a fifth column. these are all antisemitic.

Marx was not even remotely anti semitic, he simply just wasn't politically correct. if he were to revise his work to fit present standards as far as wording goes, the essence of the text would remain not the least bit anti Semitic. Bakunin, Prodhoun conversly were deeply anti Semitic, if we change the name Jew to anything else it would still be deeply reactionary. Sorry anarchists, but it's really only them whose at fault here.

-

Having stereotypical or prejudice views towards the Jews is one thing, but to politicize, and ideologically manifest it in your works is another thing. To call non politically correct 19th century stereotypes antisemitic is to trivialize real antisemitism.

-

"calling black people niggers isn't racism, its just politically incorrect....."

4 And closed.

though maybe we should create a special subforum for rafiq and 870 to flame and hurl abuse and strawmen at each other.... Your spats read like a schizophrenic arguing against his own split personality.

Sasha

99

now where did we hear that before?

Sasha

Calling a black person a nigger today is wholly and completely racist, as we live in a different context. Before, it didn't carry the same connotations. And no one is denying Marx possessed racist tendencies, but there can be no doubt he was on the anti-racist side of history with regard to issues of race. While Marx may have held deeply racist views, his (AS WELL as Hegel's) understanding of history and the laws of social motion layed the foundations for the death of any psuedo-scientific or intellectual narrative with regard to race. I really don't give a fuck as to whether Marx called someone a nigger, racism is far from a logical conclusion of his works with regard to race. Essentially Marx was not only ahead of his time, he was ahead of himself.

If Marx were to have refrained from using such words, would there be anything racist about his works? Even if the most polite of intellectuals, who would propose the existence of 'inferior races' and 'genetic predispositions toward barbarism' and whole social developments based on intrinsic inferior qualities, would be infinitely more racist than Marx ever could be, even if they refrained from ever using such a term. But go ahead Sasha, keep thinking that your blind appeals to emotion and mindless ignorance are going to pass off as a feasible argument.

-

I'm confused as to why I am supposed to give a shit about opinions held by 3 random dudes who died over a century ago. I guess I'll be sure to tell bakunin he was a real asshole the next time I see him or something.

Ethics Gradient

Yes, well this isn't about personal opinion. It's about the deeply reactionary views and ideological positions which formed as the foundation of their intellectual legacy. What a ridiculous thing to say. Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, these were men who died thousands of years ago, and yet their 'opinions' remain relevant and of great importance. Really I can't help but be infuriated by such intellectual laziness, you're not being fucking 'cool' or whatever by being dismissive, ignorance is not some kind of virtue.

-

Condemning Marx's anti-Semitism does not make you less of a Marxist. At this point, I would say that Marx only makes up a small portion of Marxism.

Atsumari

Except Marx displayed absolutely no anti-semitic tendencies, it is not as though

100

Bakunin and Marx were both equally antisemitic and both a 'product of their time'. The difference is that Bakunin formed an actual ideological position out of it, by claiming that a Jewish banking conspiracy actually existed. Any idiot who is half familiar with Marx's understanding of the social order of things would know he wasn't even close to touting such nonsense. While Marx's personal prejudice's, as well as the backward views on race that he possessed as a product of his time, are hardly praiseworthy, they can never serve as a viable criticism of Marx himself, or the Marx that is relevant to us now.

You want to talk about racism? While Marx had called someone a nigger, he was adamantly, wholly and completely supportive of the destruction of slavery in the United States, his anti-racism was expressed through actual political positions and real deeds. The titans of anarchism, Bakunin and Prodhoun, had actually supported the confederacy during the American civil war. So while Marx utilizing someone's race in a personal attack may be indicative of prejudices, talk remains cheap here. Marx the revolutionary, Marx the intellectual, Marx the social scientist was in no way racist or anti-semitic. He was here fervently opposed to such tendencies. It's so cute to see how anarchists are trying to level the field here by claiming Marx was 'racist too'. No, the racism of Bakunin and Prodhoun is in no way comparable to Marx's prejudices. Bakunin could have been completely politically correct and still completely racist. Hell, a lot of American politicians are politically correct and still infinitely more racist. You want to say fuck them? Fine, but don't drag Marx down into the shitter of illegitimacy where Prodhoun and Bakunin rightfully belong. They are not equals, they are not even comparable. No anarchist thinker will ever be able to match Marx's intellectual worth, or his legacy as a thinker.

-

Marx's anti-Semitism was pretty much in line with the "revolutionary anti-Semitism" of the time period, i.e. Jews personified selfish, retrogressive egoism in stark contrast to the supposed evolved humanism of non-Jewish (and even some Jewish) philosophers. This quote from Marx sums it up pretty well: "we therefore recognize in Judaism the presence of a universal and contemporary anti-social element whose historical evolution-eagerly nurtured by the Jews in its harmful aspects-has arrived at its present peak."

Os Cangaceiros

I think this is definitely problematic, however it's important to understand several things.

First, Marx categorized the "jews", that is, Jewish communities in Europe as a

101

cultural group formed as a result of specific changes in social relationships. To Marx, the problem was not Jews themselves, but Judaism. Marx, who had recognized the waning of Christianity, thought that Judaism required a similar treatment. Quite in line with Hegel, when Marx spoke of "barbarous" peoples, or backward cultures, it is not as though he recognized there was some kind of genetic predisposition towards such a state of being. Rather, for Marx, these were a peoples who were not some kind of "other", but a peoples who had the potential to become just as 'civilized' or 'advanced' as Europe. Marx supported the British in India not because he believed the Indians should be subservient to their European overloads, but because he believed the British were importing capitalist relations, and all the progress of modernization to India (Which would lay the foundation for Communism as well). It's funny that a lot of people overlook that the older Marx supported Indian uprisings against colonial rule.

That's quite a lot different from European anti-semitism, however, which is reactionary in nature. Anti-Semitism provides a completely different narrative on universality ("Jews are behind it all") and the existing order of things. I think it's quite obvious that is why anti-semitism is distinguished from traditional racism, it' why Communists have always been violently opposed to anti-semitism - it provides a narrative that would make the Communists, rather than being a manifestation of proletarian interests, "pawns of the Jews", it would render Marxism as a theoretical doctrine as a "Jewish fabrication" and so on.

102

Re: Is this situation rape?

There's nothing really patriarchal about the subservient and dominant roles in the act of sex in itself. The problem comes when this is socially translated, or vice versa. I think a lot of times there's always going to be a more sexually aggressive, experienced or even selfish partner. Sex would be rather boring otherwise.

-

my impression is that far more women tend to be submissive, and this is a reflection of sexuality as it is depicted by society, be it women in media that seem to be "available" for guys all the time, be it porn or whatever.

Rosa Partizan

That's very true, I'm just trying to say that women are capable of being dominant in bed too.

If we go into the ridiculous, just to peer into how very socially defined our attitudes towards gender roles are, we could imagine a matriarchal society (like the bonobo chimpanzees, where this is sometimes the case) in which the connotations are reversed. The act of penetrating is a submissive one, which requires you know, labor and effort while the passive role is dominant in that they receive pleasure while doing nothing. Yes, I know how ridiculous I sound but if you look past it you can get an idea of what I'm talking about.

And it's also funny to see how both acts of oral sex are virtually the same in position and so on, yet one is called "eating", is dominant and the other is passive and submissive.

103

Re: My understanding of why drugs are illegal.

I seriously hope that you are not as naive as you are making yourself out to be right now. If the apparatus was truly concerned about the bodily harm, fast food, Coca Cola, alcohol, tobacco, and processed food would be banned. Dodger also just liked your post which means you have much more than facts to worry about.

Atsumari

You're right, but every illegal drug has very harmful neurological, psychological effects and can really fuck you up permanently. Marijuana included, it's something a lot of people think you can just fuck with, it's a dangerous drug that while having trivial physical effects is definitely capable of being harmful, I.e. inducing psychosis.

When you lose the ability to properly understand your surroundings permanently, you lose everything. The brain is the only means by which you can communicate with and interpret the world around you, and you can easily fuck it up with drugs. - I think the greatest risk comes from taking shit like acid though (besides opiates). People always rationalize their trips spiritually or even pseudo philosophically and so on but they're really just fucked in the head.

-

Actually vapes are still just as harmful to the lungs, not a lot of people know that.

Honestly who gives a fuck about that though, that's the least of problems with marijuana.

Re: Should Communism/Socialism Allow

Religion?

104

All forms of spiritualism and all creative 'self expressed' forms of spiritualism can only derive and have their foundational origins in religions with social and political implications. There is no such thing as 'individual spirituality' or 'my own beliefs'. They all carry the same underlying ideological presumptions that make it so they are nothing more than apologists. Dare I say they are just different cosmetic styles for the same religious archetypes. They cannot fight their superstitions or beliefs, and at the same time they want to be "open minded" and "enlightened". So they guise their reactionary beliefs under things like new age spiritualism.

It is not a matter of personal belief. communism will smash religion and its social place so that very little separates a backwoods cult from Christianity or Islam. Perhaps then, categorically this will be an issue of psychological treatment.

-

In primitive communism, people did not have organised religion or even vague spiritual beliefs. They were apatheists. This suggests that the origin of religion as explaining what could not be understood without science is not the whole picture, and as Marxists the element of class would be a large suspect.

Tim Cornelis

I find this rather intriguing - could you perhaps provide a source? Not that I doubt you, but it is something which I think is worth remembering.

-

The fuck are talking about? Even despite the Soviets trying dismantle the Church, 90% of my countrymen still identify as Orthodox. This is in spite of a long history of suppression, humiliation of the religious, state atheism, atheism being taught in schools, reeducation facilities and so on. You're making the assumption that more education and less formal religious instruction equates to alleged decrease in religiosity. Would you care to extol the accomplishments of Pitești incident in this respect?

Василиса Прекра

You do realize that religious indoctrination has been a keystone factor in the revival of religious beliefs in Russia, right? It's been almost three decades since the fall of the Soviet Union, and it's been much more since the rehabilitation of the Russian Orthodox Church. I think I remember seeing about a decade ago the Russian Orthodox population in Russia being around 20%, actually, and non- religious or non practicing citizens compromising 40% of the population. Oh and today, 75%, not 90% of Russian citizens identify as Russian Orthodox.

The anti-religious campaigns in the Soviet Union were astronomically successful, what was not successful was the endurance of the Soviet State itself, however. Gradual degeneration and economic, political decline also prompted citizens to adopt a wide array of strange and mystical religious beliefs in the 1980's as well.

105

It's undeniable that more education leads to a decrease in religiosity. In Communist countries, only during the time period of their decline or gradual demise (i.e. Like the late 70's Yugoslavia) was religiosity rehabilitated - along with viciously chauvinistic nationalist sentiments and other such reactionary ideas.

So at 1991, 60% of Russian citizens were unaffiliated with any religion. Get your shit straight, Vox.

-

Religion is found in every human culture since time immemorial, it's a human thing, not a class thing.

@Rafiq, actually the Soviet Union itself near the end of it's era, encouraged the revival of the Orthodox Church in Russia. So it wasn't all indoctrination. I wish I could provide evidence, but it's been a while since I saw the article about this topic. From my recollection, it was connected with one of the Russian Orthodox Patriarchs.

Chomskyan

Yes, and the kprf today is in bed with them. What's your point? Yes it is indoctrination. Other reactionary entities were given heed toward the Soviet

106

Unions end, too. Or are neo Nazis also a "human thing". Frankly your logic is revolting.

Your argument is ridiculous. Class society has coincided with every human culture too - are classes also a "human thing"? Who cares if it is a "human thing" (genocide, slavery and war are too). Care to provide examples of a non "human thing"? Because it is so prevalent in all histories, this doesn't mean it has transhistorical implications. Religion is irrevocably tied to class society and in all cultures by which religion exists, we can trace and identify the social character of these religions and how specifically it reproduced the existed order. Or all the variations in these religions just "based on the development of pure thought"?

Is the absence of automobiles a "human thing" if we were talking in 1700? Or are there real factors and reasons as to why automobiles did not exist, other than "it's a human thing". This is precisely why Chomskys empiricism is laughable garbage.

Re: Communism impossible while the US exists?

I would say Communism is only possible so long as the U.S. exists, given the current situation in Europe. The U.S. was always the most likely country for Communism, the American red scares (especially after the october revolution) were propagated with such great ferocity for a reason. The U.S. represents the development of capitalism without the legacy, or structural constrains of the remnants of feudalism. As those on Platypus have said, the development of capitalism equally coincides with the intensification of its contradictions.

107

Re: Trotsky speaks (In English!)

Trotsky was a hypocrite, and an opportunist. While we can commend him for his service towards the revolution during the Russian civil war, the prime opposition Trotsky had leveled against Stalin was only done so from the comfort of not assuming the responsabilities of leadership in such conditions as Russia's. During the Trotsky-Stalin quarrel of the early 20's, Trotsky had argued for rapid industrialization and so forth - is this not exactly what Stalin had done? Anyone who thinks Trotsky's rule would have been very different is kidding themselves. If anything, Trotsky's rule would have more rapidly destroyed the gains of the revolution.

-

There was no viable alternative to Stalin's methods of rule, because those methods were the unavoidable byproduct of Russian conditions? Even if that is true, you jump the shark by assuming it to be the case, rather than testing it out in practice by trying to raise working-class opposition to counter-revolutionary leadership, which happens to be precisely (and unhypocritically) what Trotsky attempted to do. That you would line up on the side of Stalin shows where your politics actually lies. More evidence of the incestuous relationship between social democracy and Stalinism.

Ah, yes. Because there's obviously only one way to carry rapid industrialization. What a persuasive argument.

Five Year Plan

There was no viable method to Stalin's rule as far as the preservation and defense of the revolution goes, no. By the early 1930's to speak of a "working class

108

revolution" against the soviet state is absolutely ridiculous as well as completely improbable. There was absolutely no context for the occurrence of such a thing. Trotsky had not attempted to re-create the proletarian dictatorship, instead Trotsky had attempted to pursue Trotsky's own interests as an opportunist. Unlike what was allegedly revealed from the Great Purges, Trotsky was largely if not almost completely irrelevant by the time he was exiled. The same hypocritical scumbag who used the pretext of "human rights" and "liberty" in his criticism of the Soviet state? Could such arguments have not been made against the Bolshevik state during the times of the revolution, where the Cheka and organs of state power had utilized violations of 'liberty' and 'human rights' in order to defend the revolution? Trotsky was nothing short of a Menshevik opportunist at heart and Lenin faulted greatly in trusting him. The fires of the revolution were not kindled deep inside him, he was nothing short of a crypto-liberal, an apologist rather than champion of Communism. More de-legitimizing of the entirety of the post is the fact that you would associate with me 'social democracy'. If anything, there is an infinitely more likely tendency for Trotskyists to adhere to social democratic tendencies. I cannot help but ignore such accusations that I 'side' with Stalin, well with regard to his split with Trotsky if these are my only two choices then of course I will side with Stalin. I would have supported, as a candidate for leadership a military leader with more dedication towards the revolution, a la Mikhail Frunze.

During the 30's Hitler spoke about how he was worried fanatics would come to power in the Soviet Union that would rupture their alliance. These, perhaps, are those I would have given my support.

-

We know in retrospect that Trotsky faced an uphill battle. To fault him for lacking that knowledge in the midst of class struggle is, as you might say, "absolutely ridiculous." What is more ridiculous still is to pretend that a political revolution of the masses was not possible, being that workers still had institutions whose formal structure was conducive to advancing their political agency, as warped as those institutions had become as the result of the bureaucracy.

But again, all this dodges the question completely. It's one thing to say that Trotsky was facing incredibly remote odds in his struggle. It's another thing to use that as a pretext for condemning his attempt to stimulate workers' agency to reign in a counter-revolutionary bureaucracy. By analogy: a political revolution of the masses in the Soviet Union in the late 1920s was more likely, I would wager, than a working-class revolution in the United States in the next five years. By your logic, we should be condemning American revolutionaries who are attempting to stimulate working-class anti-capitalist struggle against the bourgeoisie, by saying that the bourgeoisie is the only viable option at the present moment.

109

The rest of your post is not worthy of response.

Five Year Plan

No, you don't understand the point. The point is that to speak of a "working class revolution" could never even mean that and Trotsky knew damn well of it. He utilized such nonsense while fully aware of the situation - perhaps in an attempt at self aggrandizement, we will never know. By the way, what American revolutionaries do you speak of? I have never heard of them.

-

Oh, so Trotsky, who led the revolutionary Red Army to victory, was deliberately lying in every single one of his revolutionary polemics, for reasons we can't guess at. .

Five Year Plan

No he wasn't lying, he was apologizing. All trotsky ever was was an apologist for Communism. Communists do not apologize.

You've never heard of revolutionary socialists, people struggling right now to advance the fight for socialism, living in the United States? You must be new here

Five Year Plan

Not presently, no. Who today is fighting for socialism in the United States? I wish to find, and join them immediately.

-

This point of his action during the Revolution keep popping up.

I wonder what it was like back then. Did they consider what they were doing a war or civil oppression? Did they kill out of necessity, violence, convenience?

It is easy to see things from one angle; a lot harder to consider opposing ideas on these sorts of things.

Democracy

The barbarism of capitalism and neo-feudal Russia was the standard, they considered that they were fighting for the defense of the proletarian dictatorship at all costs. Do you think Robespierre and the Jacobins had the time or space to talk of violence and 'civil oppression' whilst the enemy had surrounded them at every corner?

110

Re: Why Ancient Wisdom Matters In the

Modern World

I like Wade Davis https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuJsbjKKh3E what do you guys think of this video

GodOfEvil

Absolutely sickening, what utter garbage. Wisdom is counter revolutionary, and 'ancient wisdom' is reactionary. Wisdom is the result of no history, wisdom is the experienced and specialized means of reproducing the existing conditions. Notice how after st. Paul's Christianity did history begin to change rapidly, which each social epoch lasting less and less time. The Christianity that gave us the renessiance and Muntzer, the Christianity of whichs logical conclusion was atheism. The political implications of eastern spiritualism are cryptofascism. There is no debate or argument here.

"Yeah! My white guilt compels me to throw away the legacy of European thought! Fuck the enlightenment, fuck western ideas, fuck revolutionary politics!". Actually, maybe when we crucify the new age scum en masse they can gleefully interpret it as just necessarily part of the cosmic balance and natural harmony. Less of a hassle, then.

-

I think it's an old mistake that (admittedly brilliant) people like Hegel and Marx made to think that the West is somehow uniquely prone to historical movement and progress, and the inverse of this mistake is to reject everything Western and modern in favor of some kind of mythical pre-modern, non-Western world.

Sinister Cultural Marxist

Actually no, they didn't think that Sinister. Marx and Hegel specifically believed that not because the West was 'unique', but because of the wests very specific social evolution (or in Hegel's case, the evolution of ideas), and their specific historical circumstances made them capable of real conscious historical progress. Progress was derived, for them, by the accidnetal development of capitalism. It is

111

true that in some parralel universe other societies could have done so as well, but they didn't, and that doesn't mean white people are more unique or that western culture has this predisposition. Really the Greeks, Romans were unique in a way, but not distinguished noticeably from other pagan cultures (I.e. Alexander had great respect for the wisdom of the ancient Indians, because it was relevant). Western paganism is something we consider unique only because our existing conditions TODAY are unique, and for that reason we conceive plato, aristotle, etc. in the way we do.

Also Rafiq - how are you defining "wisdom"? There is nothing necessarily counter-revolutionary to the concept of "wisdom" traditionally conceived of as Sophos. Your example of Christianity and the movement towards Atheism stemming from it seems to uphold this, as Christians themselves appropriated and popularized Platonic concepts of wisdom, and the renaissance and enlightenment stemmed from taking what was relevant from these views and stripping them of superstition. The Enlightenment was not the rejection of wisdom, but the attempt to make it universal. Sinister Cultural Marxist

I should be more clear, I speak of wisdom not in the sense of knowledge but wisdom as far as the old wise men. The enlightenment strove to make reason and 'knowledge' universal, but not wisdom. Wisdom is the experienced reproduction of existing conditions, the absence of history. I think we can both generally agree here, the problem comes with how we are defining wisdom. Essentially wisdom is the antithesis of history and social change, it is the legitimization and mystification of events in that these events are replicated. -

You're probably the least fun person on the planet to, what're you even talking about babe? Like honestly what are you talkin bout? You're like just arguing against words at this point. I'm not trying to be mean or rude but it's like you have surpassed me in ability to troll and I'm curious lol.

Василиса Прекра

If you don't understand something, if you can't comprehend what I'm talking about (Others seem to be able to...) then that's your problem, Vox. You want to dismiss the entire field of philosophy, go ahead, but kindly leave. For a self-proclaimed troll, it's not surprising you don't understand, it's not surprising your bathe proudly in your rotten philistinism and ignorance, your anti-intellectualism is not by any means fashionable. Why are you even here? If you want to be intellectually lazy, why are you on a discussion board for revolutionary leftist politics? Why don't you just abandon your nonsensical ideas and casually allow hegemonic ideology think for you?

-

My critique of Hegel is that I don't think he understood the development of ideas and events outside of the West, in part simply because only a few works were translated, and he was operating in a tradition that did not yet understand the histories of other regions. Ideas evolved just as much outside the West than inside, albeit differently (and it developed in various different ways outside of the West too), but Hegel's writings in the Phenomenology and

112

Philosophy of History present non-Western thought as fairly static, as opposed to his presentation of the dynamic, constantly evolving West (perhaps best exemplified by his statement that world history moves West). It isn't so much that he was an essentialist regarding the unique aspects of European culture, it's that he overlooked pretty important developments which really did occur outside of the West.

Interestingly the interest in non-Western ideas remained well into the Enlightenment, although I don't think it ever reached the outward-looking nature of the ancient Greeks which you remarked on (incidentally, Western India, Persia, the Semitic world and Greece remained in a state of intellectual exchange for some time, past the rise of Islam, perhaps up to the time of the Mongol invasions). Liebniz for instance was a sinophile.

Sinister Cultural Marxist

Hegel did not mean to say the west was inristically unique, but he was correct in his assertion that non-western thought did remain fairly static. It is inarguable that changes in ideology were much more rapid in Europe, not because the white man is more inclined to progress, but as Marx would later recognize because European social relations were much more chaotic and more inclined toward rapid change as a result of intensified class struggle. This could have a lot of ideological implications (christianity) or a combination with the fact that the accident of capitalism sparked something entirely new. I think Hegel also recognized that the relevancy of classical ideas was only something that came about from the renaissance, the birth of exclusively bourgeois ideas. Thus we can assume that the historical legacy of the west, is only emphasized because of our present, existing conditions. Hegel focused primarily on the west, because world history truly was hearted in Europe at his time, of which countries outside were being sucked in. Marx had referred to asiatic mode(s) of production as without history because in them were only changes in dynasty. Again, this has little to do with inferior or superior peoples, rather, a convenient set of accidents. The barbarians of Europe, from the Gauls to the Celts had absolutely no inclination towards any sort of progress, they would have remained as their asiatic neighbors did if not for the changes to have occurred in the way they did. One cannot even begin to talk of the similarities between European paganism and eastern spiritualism.

Interestingly enough, though,

Science and knowledge, especially that of philosophy, came from the Arabs into the West

Hegel

Hegel was by no means ignorant to the development of history outside Europe. https://www.marxists.org/reference/a.../lectures4.htm

I think the definition of wisdom I am operating with is the definition in Aristotle's ethics of picking out the right knowledge to come to the appropriate understanding of a situation, as opposed to the knowledge of one who has

113

"cleverness". Certainly, that form of wisdom would be both practically and theoretically important, and not just reactionary garbage.

Sinister Cultural Marxist

What I am trying to get at is that wisdom is generally the fullest legitimization of the existing order, generally revolutionary thought has to be 'outside' the field of wisdom, for wisdom will recognize the situation as acceptable, realistic, and so forth. Revolutionaries demand the impossible, while wisdom can only recognize what is possible.

-

what does stalin mean by "I consider it completely unimportant who in the party will vote, or how; but what is

extraordinarily important is this: who will count the votes, and how." -JS

5

6

 

 

Notice it's only those conservative liberal scum who make shit up and rehash it casually.

5 Are you sure that's even a Stalin quote though? Just like those quotes always attributed to Churchill and what-ever, they are often largely deformed or entirely figments of imagination, sometimes taken from others. (A case in point is that dreadfully stupid quote about "Liberal at 20... conservative at 40...", often attributed to Churchill, but not actually so.)

Takayuki

6 The origin of the quote is Boris Bazhanov, an anti-communist Soviet defector, who attributes it to Stalin in his autobiography.

Not to rush to the defense of Stalin, but it's very likely bullshit.

The Garbage Disposal Unit

114

Re: How to combat reactionary thought?

I have been trying to find out how to combat reactionary thought (such as religion, "where's your proof communism isnt dictators", etc.) in a Marxist, scientific manner but I don't know how (mostly because I've only been a

Communist for a year). Can anyone help?

If they're from a small business or capitalist background, there's nothing to argue about.

Re: Hi, I have a interesting ideology

I am the God of evil and i want to share my weird political mind set some of you will not like it & some of you will

115

probably be indifferent so here we go. Ps my grammar sucks

Race/Ethnicity: i don't believe race exist but i do believe people's have the right their preserve "kind" from extinction because it keeps humanity unique in a way (race mixing adds more diversity but it would not solve racism look at Latin America), japan is not japan with out Japanese. but the new world nations have know excuse as long as immigrants assimilate

Culture/languages: similar to race i believe almost all cultures & all languages should be preserved, i believe westernization & globalization are the same they are kill the human cultural diversity on the planet.

Government: as an American i personally don't care what government we have. the Tea partyers are complaining that we are becoming authoritarian but as we all know democracies don't last forever so they shouldn't be surprised. in a lot of ways i like authoritarian governments it is arguably the oldest from of government on earth & it is a lot quicker in doing things. i don't hate democracy but i don't & would not advocate it because it's not for everybody

and i didn't think it can bring "peace & freedom"

plus i don't believe anarchy works

Economy: capitalism sucks i don't hate it but it should be controlled. i like mixed economies, the government controls all the importation stuff like schools, health, etc and the people run their businesses and do whatever, i like Protectionism

Religion: all religion are not the same. i don't like it when "new atheist" paint religions under one brush, are they all "fake" yeah but theirs more to a lot of them you can't compare Islam to Wicca. i like a lot of religions (excluding Abrahamic religions, Islam being the worst in modern times) because it add to the human diversity of how should we act.

GodOfEvil

This is the same user who prattled of "ancient wisdom" in that other thread.

Does anyone want to deny, still, the connection between eastern spirituality/paganism and reactionary politics?

-

Let every "racial group" disappear and lose their "uniqueness" for all anyone fucking cares, they do not look that way to aesthetically please you. Racial purity is bullshit anyway, genetic diversity is a biological necessity.

If different cultures are going to be annihilated, so be it. You want to glorify their food, you want to glorify their fascinating dances and their interesting 'ancient wisdom' but what, you want to ignore bride price? You want to ignore child abuse? Polygamy? Among other characteristics that are backward? Because you're an

116

orientalist, you see them as people's, like the blue avatar people who are there to fascinate and please you, rather than a people's whose customs and culture were formed as a result of their less intricate social relationships to production. There is no other reason cultures should be intentionally preserved in the midst of globalization of modernisation, other than to to give you a sense of wonder and fascination. Well fuck you, people and their kids deserve education and a decent standard of living, regardless of whether you think they'll lose their aesthetic value.

-

The paradox is here: do Europeans also have a right to abandon universalism and enlightenment values and go back to their cultural "roots" (as seen by neopagans and fascists?) Such an argument can be applied to the Europeans that struggle so tirelessly to leave the EU and preserve their cultural uniqueness.

Everyone forgets that Europe too, once, was just another stinking pile of shit with its barbarism and lack of history. Europe became what it is NOT as a logical conclusion of those pagan, remote cultures, NOT as a logical conclusion of the culture of the Gauls, Kelts, Saxons, Franks or EVEN the Romans. Europe became what it is on accident, and the legacy of European thought extends far beyond itself as a series of nations. And yes, this universalism we unapologetically demand will be imposed upon the entire world.

-

Rafiqs passionate "resistance is futile" Borgian doctrine of revolutionary ideology calling capitalist bourgeois globalization "modernization" and thinking this modernization differs from the negative aspects he laments and blasts other cultures for. Never mind the blatant mysogeny, childabuse and forced sexual moralism and heteronormativity...never mind the triumph of commercialized "progress" and its origins in white imperialist supremacy theory (which ironically ridicules other cultures for being backwards)....this is UNIVERSALISM people. Bow for its might.

PhoenixAsh

So rafiq thinks colonialism had positive cultural rammifications such as the rape of nearly every living woman in the aztec empire by the spaniards?

117

I dont think sexual moralism is a thing in bourgeois culture. We live in a rape culture if anything.

Geiseric

Was the forced modernization of the Central Asian republics a form of colonialism? It was not.

Pheonix once again demonstrates his utter lack of understanding by refusing to recognize that all feminist, anti-racist, and anti-colonial movements that emerged from colonies could only have formed as a result of the introduction of western ideas. Concepts like egalitarianism, even freedom, things we take for granted were alien to such societies before. European powers then became the barbarous, and those fighting against colonists became the egalitarian fighters of enlightenment values. This is why Marx had supported British rule in India only up to a point - people forget that Marx in his later years began to support anti-colonial movements in India.

In many societies - including the Aztecs, anti-colonialism would have been a ridiculous thing. Societies where might made right. We do not call globalization in its current form universalism (One could look at the steady alliance between liberal capitalism and the despots of the near east), we call Communism and the rejection of liberal 'multiculturalism' universalism. By Phoenix's logic, we 'Chauvinists' have no right to tell others how to live. Does he really think that 'organic' sexual slavery of the Middle East is better than capitalist patriarchy? Only through capitalism and its contradictions (Communism) was feminism able to actually develop. Our Communism and all the values it entails will reduce to rubble those cultures which stand at odds, our standards must be applied universally OR THEY MEAN NOTHING. To Pheonix, non-white people are incapable of modernization and social progress. It's a bullshit false dichotomy, a postmodern lie. What about all the progressive movements of the third world which DESPISED their own backward cultures, where clerics and conservative landowners had the full backing of the European powers? Were they brainwashed by the white man? Even the British highly respected the Indian caste system and the former ruling class of India and all of their backward values, it was the later anti-colonial movements that introduced western ideas. But without the introduction to western ideas in the first place, it would never have happened.

And therein resides the paradox. Europeans bring western ideas, but in doing so

118

they make inevitable their own doom. Because you can't have one without the other, the bourgeois-liberal demand for freedom will necessarily follow any attempt at colonialism. But the Communists do not seek to colonize countries of the East, rather, a preferable choice is to assist the revolutionary movements of other countries, be it militarily or otherwise to power regardless of their level of popularity.

-

Also, capitalist globalization compared to what? If these societies were not capitalist before, does that mean their pre-capitalist societies are preferable? For what? For you bullshit morals to be satisfied? If we are Communists, then we must recognize Communism as an impossibility without the class by which Communism manifests its interests - the proletariat!

Phoenix likes to hurl his shitty slanderous archetypes of what he thinks I'm trying to argue for because he is incapable of arguing with me. He couldn't just address my post for what it is, instead he has to accuse me of adhering to beliefs that I do not, and then he precedes to attack them. He is only capable of straw-man arguments. Of course we cannot expect much from the likes of him (Oh, and by the way, before someone accuses me of speaking as though I'm a 'schizophrenic talking with his split personality' I speak not to myself, but to everyone in this thread), after all he is quite adamant about his reactionary beliefs as a petty bourgeois ideologue.

Communism is universal, Communists do not tolerate backwardness and that which opposes us solely because "it's their culture" or "it's their way/nature". IT"S NOT THEIR CULTURE, it is the culture that is IMPOSED on them by their according ruling classes, it is the culture which formed not as a result of their conscious will or 'choice' but as a result of their social relationships to production. But no, talk more of how it is their 'consensual choice' to remain backward, just as many slave societies existed 'consensually'. No radical gives a fuck about that, it's meaningless. It is the will of their according hegemonic ideologies which serve only the interests of those in power, those of whom would benefit in the infinite reproduction of their existing conditions. All who speak of 'tolerance' of other cultures are thus speaking of 'tolerance' toward the ruling classes of other cultures, Phoenix the orientalist scum sees them as animals whose

119

nature is 'just the way it is' for whatever fucking reason.

Honestly I absolutely despise such an obnoxious way of arguing. It boils my blood when people try to form a coherent argument with this bullshit sarcastic internet humor and 'smileys' and whatever. Grow the fuck up and actually try to form a coherent argument, honestly there are few people on this site who have ever tried to have a go at me, whose arguments weren't wholly composed of just slander and nonsense.

-

After making a passionate endorsement of colonialism and imperialism for educating and enlightening the poor savages...Rafiq comes up with this gem in his attempt to white wash his "white mans burden" speech.

You know....while opening with this:

Basically saying these "backwards cultures" (and yes...that IS a Rafiq quote) would never have been able to develop on their own without the white man.

PhoenixAsh

What a damned bore you are Pheonix, what a stupid and incredibly predictable argument. I begin to wonder if you're even human, rather than some kind of spambot.

Colonialism and Imperialism are not the only means of bringing modernization to people's outside the sphere of capitalist development, but this was the means by which it did. It was barbarous, it was vicious and brutal, there can be no doubt about that, but it happened. And while we can talk of the other means by which such space could have been brought (I.E. The soviet state and their treatment of THE CENTRAL ASIAN REPUBLICS, why do you keep ignoring this?) it is over. Lenin himself made it very clear that by the onset of the first world war, all forms of Imperialism had lost any historically progressive role, and that all forms of colonialism and so on could only be opposed by any Communist. I have not said anything that is indicative of saying otherwise. All outside cultures are, by the standards of our existing conditions as well as by the standards of Communism were indeed incredibly backward. INCLUDING Europe before it gained the holy ghost of universalism.

There is not some linear, inevitable predisposition for all societies of all corners of the globe to develop in the same way Europe did, Europe had become the most

120

advanced by accident, Europe distinguished itself as a result of very specific historical circumstances, dating back from the Roman Empire. If we were to go back in time, say two thousand years, it is very unlikely Europe as it exists today would look the same. As such, it is astronomically unlikely that backward societies, from neo-feudal societies to remote tribes would ever create the necessary conditions of Communism, they would never "advance" on their own, Europe did so on accident. It's quite a simple thing to understand really, and there's no going around it. You simply don't understand how social relationships to production are so definitive of ideological circumstances, culture, standards and way of life and so on. The context for your ideas, AND THEY ARE IDEAS, i.e. Feminism, and so on, do not exist within them. And why don't you understand? Because you're not a Marxist, you're an intellectually lazy petty bourgeois ideologue who thinks his own ideological universe is superior to that of any other ideology just for the fuck of it, even though their universe is just as consistent, and coherent.

But please, go on and claim I'm apologizing for colonialism, go on and make these emotional arguments, well fuck it, I don't care. Yes non-western societies were incredibly backward and manifested in them everything that we here in the west are fighting against. You've still ignored the fact that I said these has nothing cosmetically to do with "western culture" or "western people" but the specific evolution of social relations in Europe. As Kautsky said, there is no genetic or inherent predisposition towards advancement or progress for European peoples.

I guess your emotions stop you from truly recognizing the reality of thigns: Tell me, Pheonix, how would the conditions of Communism (AND COMMUNISM is a phenomena exclusive to Europe, and capitalist relations, Communism is not some eternal fucking idea so don't give me that shit about "Communal societies". Communism as an ideology is so much more complicated than that!)? Again, do you think there is some kind of linear path towards Communism or Capitalism?

And here's the real hilarity: Phoenix accuses me of chauvinism and yet he truly believes that European history, that is, European social history is some kind of path that is universally followed by all humans. History inherent only to Europe's, to him, can be applied to the rest of the world. And he speaks of

121

Eurocentricism and 'western bias'?

So western intervention basically artificially stopped the development of their own movements, ideas and development. But never mind this. Of course I am arguing these backwards cultures where incapable of coming up with western bourgeois brilliance rather than saying that endorsing one over the other...you are still backing enforced culture. Rafiq is simply too blind to understand this position.

PhoenixAsh

Colonial rule hindered and violently opposed the development of western ideas in the countries they had colonized, but such movements and such ideas would have never existed without the introduction to and imposition of western culture in the first place. Phoenix thinks every fact, every truth is something to be celebrated.

No, this is reality, like it or not. I've said this countless times before, Marxists who had existed decades before I was even born have said this countless times before, the bourgeoisie as a class developed specifically as a result of Europe's social evolution (or revolutions, I should say), such backward cultures are backward BY OUR STANDARDS. Again, Europe did not achieve what it did because they are superior, they achieved what they did on accident, as a result of their very specialized and specific social relations, as a result of a series of events which could have just easily not have happened. You're a complete moron because you don't understand a very basic truth: OUR PRESENT CONDITIONS are not something humans would have wished for thousands of years ago, THEY ARE OUR PRESENT CONDITIONS and we derive Communism and our ideology FROM EXISTING CONDITIONS. Communism IS A PHENOMENA exclusive to THIS social epoch! And all talk of 'previous communist societies' is done so from the lens, bias of our existing premises! God you're fucking stupid, I thought this was a given!

Do you think that the Indian National Congress and it's demand for democracy, liberty and whatever would have ever developed INSIDE India if not for the introduction of ideas like democracy by western powers such as Britain, and the social context for democracy that they had brought? No!

This isn't a matter of brilliance or moral desirability, this is about developing the conditions for Communism as we are Communists. But let me be very clear, as Lenin had pointed out Imperialism and colonialism have no positive implications since (or quite before) the onset of the first world war.

In Rafiq's eyes it is good that the white man came along and colonized these backward cultures. All in the name of communism.

122

Which is basically the lamest excuse for imperialism I have ever heard.

But coming from Rafiq, a user who completely and uncritically backs the bourgeois state and wants it to be even more repressive in enforcing their moraliity....and in the process completely backs petit-bourgeois laws and morality....this shouldn't at all be surprising.

PhoenixAsh

Do you deny that progressive national-liberation movements, and anti-colonial movements had their ideological origins in exclusively and originally western ideas? Or do you think they pulled them out of your ass? You're just stupid, I'm not trying to insult you, you're literally just a very stupid person. I'm sorry about that too, but don't think you can argue with me here. You don't understand the origin of ideas, you take things that have their origin in Europe for granted and just magically assume that they have context everywhere else in the world. That's nothing short of fucking Eurocentricsim.

But the rotten scoundrel you are, where have I claimed that the "white man" has anything to do with it? Where the fuck have I claimed capitalist powers being composed of white people has anything to do with anything? You're a dishonest piece of shit, is all. At least my arguments are coherent, at least behind the rightfully leveled insults there are real arguments that apply to yours, at least I'm not arguing with a fucking strawman.

Oh and if anyone is unfamiliar, Phoenix claims I uncritically back the bourgeois state because he believes in the right for children as young as 8 years old to consent to being molested and fucked by adults, (maybe he's a pedophile himself). What else? He also, as a result of his 'anarchism' supports the defense of child abusers and women beaters against the state, because the state has no business interfering in the affairs and power of the patriarchal man. So I'll let you all decide as to whether violently opposing his poistions translates into "supporting the bourgeois state".

But truly, the petty bourgeois ideologue you are, the militia-movement esque reactionary you are, I am truly honored to be accused of supporting the bourgeois state. I would give me whole-hearted support to the bourgeois state that crushes the petty bourgeois scum, that I assure you (this is something that rarely happens). But because it is something that either never happens, or happens half-assed, Phoenix's

123

petty bourgeois convictions are signified by the fact that he over-exaggerates the role of the state in the affairs of families and small buisnesses/communities. So be happy, Pheonix, Sheriff Bob reigns supreme in your little small town, the big scary federal government is not going to intervene, and Sheriff Bob will make sure women know there place, and make sure he can express his reactionary perogatives without federal intervention. The same federal state, mind you, which adopts laws against reactionaries as a result of forced pressure by the proletarian movement. Where does it end? Is it state-repression to enforce the minimum wage? To fight against child labor? What gives you the right to claim that the state arresting pedophiles, is bad, but the state making sure the minimum wage is enforced is good? The proletariat and all progressive movements fought with their blood to force the state into doing such things, only to have a little petty bourgeois 'leftist' twat come along and call it oppressive. Go fuck yourself.

One mere post after completely validating, and endorsing, the enforcement of western ideas and the assimilation of other cultures by western bourgeois culture Rafiq THEN proceeds to defend the culture which is basically more of the same. Luckily white people were so enlightened as to bring their education to these backward cultures.

PhoenixAsh

I do support the enforcement of western ideas upon other cultures, just as the Soviets enforced gender equality and the forced education of the people's of the central asian republics, I make no apologies, I wholly support this, yes. You can go cry about your blue avatar people losing their aesthetic value. As I said, Europeans themselves didn't encourage the development of western ideas to the people's of the east, they repressed it. They supported conservative landowners and so on. But none the less they brought these ideas without intending to. You're not a Marxist, I know it's hard to understand these kinds of concepts, such as doing things without intent. And even then, nowhere did I claim this had anything to do with 'race' or some kind of genetic predisposition. So shut the fuck up, and no, I make no apologies, of course white people in the 18th century were on average more educated and more technologically advanced than others, though this has nothing to do with their 'whiteness' but their specific social relations to production which were formed on accident, as any other. Communism, and even Anarchism was derived from European culture solely. Don't show me some bullshit communal society from thousands of years ago, that has fuck all to do with anything and you know it, the anarchist movement was by no means influenced by them. My line has been consistent with Hegel's, and any Marxists. The people's of the East are

124

organized into backward, repressive social relationships and cultures, but that does not mean they have to remain as such, and it is just unlikely, impossible even that they would have attained the conditions for proletarian consciousness or capitalism on their own, and why? Because this phenomena was exclusive to Europe's historical social changes, there is no 'meaning' to it, it was all on accident. And we are Communists as a result of present conditions. It's not hard to understand.

But go ahead, keep whitewashing and glorifying things like bride price and other such backward practices, keep looking at other cultures from your shit stained orientalist glasses. You're a white European, and my parents were born in the Near East. You're going to accuse me of thinking the white man is superior? Clearly, he is not, as my argument is undoubtedly superior to yours as far as this discussion goes.

I know what you are trying to argue. We have been here a thousand times and I am tired of your ad hominem and obscenity filled epistels where you trump bourgeois states, law, culture and morality and try to pass it off as revolutionary. Arguing with you is like playing chess with a pigeon. You simply don't understand, don't want to understand and are incapable of understanding.

PhoenixAsh

The achievements of the liberal state (or will you claim there are none?) are the presupposition of the proletariat's liberation, while for the petite bourgeoisie the liberal state is opposed for all the wrong reasons. I don't think there's an easier way to describe you. You don't get it. You just don't. You're a moron, I'm sorry about that. But why recycle the same arguments? Didn't you learn from the thread that got closed? I addressed ALL of this, and you wouldn't reply (you had more than a while to, the thread didn't get closed until after a few days). You don't dodge my fucking post and then recycle the same shit that I addressed. http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...86&postcount=7

You can keep arguing Phoenix. You'll never win. Not because I'm better, but because you're wrong. You're an idiot. I predict that you will level the same recycled straw man arguments against me and accuse me of 'endorsing colonialism' and racism or whatever, and you're free to do so. I'll be here to shove those accusations right back up your ass where you got them.

-

You already lost when you called the cultures of non whites backward by its very nature.

125

But then again your passionate defense of the bourgeois state and petit-bourgeois morality already put you behind the curve. So keep digging.

Naturally you try to white-wash this by pretending I am a pedophile for arguing that anybody who believes the bourgeois state and legal system can and will actually protect people against exploitation are totally insane. Especially when they back laws which originate in heteronormativity and patriarchal desire for controlling womens sexuality. I can understand you want to straw man my actual arguments to cover up your defence of the bourgeois & petit-bourgeois morality tale there. And naturally you need to create an argument I never actually made....because you haven't got an actual leg to stand on. But no amount of rethorics will whipe away your statement that we need more bourgeois state to regulate individual behavior as an opposition to my argument that we need laws that actually protect children rather than trump bourgeois legal systems and laws created by the petit-bourgeois that actually don't do shit rather than be able to control and violate.

His entire argument is based in opposition to the main argument I made: Everybody is autonomous and this autonomy (both psychological and physical) needs to be central in legislature. This is the only way people will be adequately protected from their family, other individuals and the state. Rafiq, as a huge fan boy of the bourgeois state and legal system, argues that the state needs to actually interfere more with the lives of people and needs to adopt laws which unilaterally takes the right and legal ability away of people to make their own decisions.

So there we have it. You're a white mans burden apologist of bourgeois state, morality and culture over the working class and non-whites...who would be totally helpless without it and would never ever have developed from their backwards nature.

PhoenixAsh

The American south, composed of whites is infinitely more backward than black cultures in the North. I don't see what 'whites' or race has anything to do with the topic.

But fine, if you want to just declare things, sure Phoenix, you won, champ. You claimed things baselessly, and winning equates to saying whatever the fuck you want.

I mean, if you want to believe all of those things, you can. You have the freedom to go on believing all of that, sure. It's just, you know, not true. But go ahead sport, believe what you want. Let's let everyone else here decide http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...86&postcount=7 (isn't it funny that everything in his post was addressed in this one?)

-

Perhaps you should concern yourself with reading some post colonialism and post colonial feminist theories. I think you could benefit from it insteaf of uncritically trumping western culture and advances as being superior and lying and straw manning your way through your foul mouthed exchanges and attempts at strong arming.

PhoenixAsh

Or maybe you yourself can link anything which would defend your apparent

126

claims. No thanks, my line is the Marxist one, the same one that has been shared since Hegel.

Re: Do you believe in god(s)? Poll #5

I think while we can recognize of course there are no gods, once we overlook our atheist insecurities it is important to recognize the real implications of belief in a god, and what they mean in different context. And of coarse here I mean Robespierre's cult of the supreme being. Robespierre claimed that atheism was aristocratic, and that the idea of a god that watches over the oppressed, defends them and so on is inherently popular. Though if we look at this closer, within the context of the development of revolutionary-radical bourgeois ideology I think there is a grain of truth to this, I would even go as far as saying it is relevant to Communism. Of coarse there is no god, of coarse it's nonsense, but the point is not that there is some conscious being which the Jacobins devoted themselves to, rather this conscious being was the absolute legitimization of their real revolutionary ideas: That their cause is not only legitimate on Earth, but is legitimate by right of divine providence. That the enemies of the "oppressed" could hide nowhere, the universe itself was on the side of the 'people' (against the aristocrats) I think in this sense the Communists too are distinguished from traditional atheism in that we are post-atheists. Because we understand the nature of things, as materialists (as a result of the development of what became modern science in the 19th century) we do not have a 'supreme being' rather our

127

legitimization is derived from such science itself, humans and their social relationships to each other, our divine providence is instead replaced with our understanding of the existing order and the nature of power. Whole truth must necessarily be synonymous with Communist ideology, and the Jacobins, the revolutionary bourgeoisie had taken truth for themselves by appropriating from the previous ruling ideology the idea of a 'god' - the Communists then take truth for themselves by appropriating from the ruling ideology the scientific method and the present standards of reason, truth. Thus reason itself is on the side of the damned, the exploited, the legitimization of their own power (the bourgeoisie) turns on itself, and becomes a weapon of the exploited classes (And look how today, hegemonic ideology more and more embeds itself with mysticism and vulgar politics, turning on its own intial presumptions, just as the feudal aristocracy had turned on their own presumptions by swathing themselves in corruption and hedonistic decadence, the concept of a 'god' and all that was previously holy now belonged the revolutionary bourgeoisie and they legitimized themselves as such). Marx spoke ill of bourgeois atheists not because he believed religion and idealism was attacked to heavily, rather he spoke ill of them because they were in effect further legitimizing the existing order (like New atheists do today). We already know there are no gods, (just as we congratulate and recognize the achievements in technology, and so on, as we are not reactionaries) the time for dealing with existing conditions, the class struggle and the struggle against bourgeois rationalism, for Marx, was of primary importance.

Of coarse today it is much more complicated and a lot different: Today the defense of atheism is all the more important with reactionary developments in bourgeois ideology (religious revival, new age spiritualism, and so on). Religion today is not a phenomena fading away with the triumph of capital doing away with old superstitions, rather capital has reached a desperate and vicious point where it will eat away its first children: Capital today legitimizes itself with mysticism and religion, turning against enlightenment values of bourgeois rationalism, even of civic values, democracy, and so on. The progressive legacy of capitalism is thus handed down to those who will do away with capitalism: the revolutionary proletariat. They do not replicate these old ideas, rather they must remind us that they can no longer coincide with the interests of capital, that for everyone the only choice that remains is Communism or barbarism. The future of civilization itself

128

thus depends on the revival of the proletarian movement and a new Communism.

Re: Gideon Levy: The world is sick of Israel and its insanities

Interesting article.

but the U.S. and Germany will continue to dance to Israels tune. Count on it.

Hagalaz

Anti semitism at its purest

-

I think conflating the recognition of the nation state of Israel as the international ally of western capital in the Middle East with the discrimination of Jews is ridiculous.

GiantMonkeyMan

This is not what was said. What was said was that Germany and the U.S. would continue to "dance to Israel's tune".

129

Re: Opposing big business: an opportunist adaptation to petit-bourgeois consciousness

I've noticed that a lot of posters here - and certain ostensibly socialist organisations - make much of their opposition to big business, or to "corporations" and so on. Now, anyone familiar with socialist politics is surely aware that socialists oppose all forms of capitalism, business in general. Marx's critique of capitalism applies to small businesses as much as to the largest corporate entities. In fact some of the small businesses straddle the line between capitalist enterprise and artisans engaged in petty commodity production, a thoroughly obsolete social form almost wiped out by capitalism.

In fact, large-scale industrial cartels and trusts, chartered as corporations and closely connected to the financial oligarchies of the imperialist metropole, represent the most advanced form of capitalism, both the most rapacious and expansive, and the most orderly and rational - in fact these entities are the closest (along with wartime planning) that capitalism comes to the socialised planned economy that socialists advocate (although this "closest" is not that much). Hence Lenin's slogan - "through cartels into socialism".

It seems to me that the prevalence of anti-corporate views is due to the opportunism of many ostensible socialists, and the deeply reactionary climate of the current period, which draws ostensible socialists to the ruined petite- bourgeoisie (as the social-democrat traitors were drawn to these same strata after WWI). Because opposition to large-scale enterprise is characteristic of the small artisan or farmer, who wishes to protect his private property but is at the same time mortally frightened of being out-competed by the more efficient big business.

This is also notable in the adoption by many ostensible socialists of populist slogans about "the 99%", which obviously includes not just the petite bourgeoisie and all of the middleman strata but also a large section of the haute bourgeoisie, and even explicit theoretical revisions of Marxism that erase every class and social stratum except the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, implicitly extending the term "proletariat" to cover the petite bourgeoisie.

What does the rest of RevLeft think about this?

870

The difference is that small businesses are reactionary even within capitalism, and are therefore worse.

-

So political power is derived from the consent of the people, their desire and will? This isn't a liberal view, you don't think?

Five Year Plan

It's absolutely a liberal understanding of the nature of power, actually. Mass

130

submission to the power of the state is a result of the mechanisms of the state which in turn is a result of a collection of social relationships to production and the class of which's interests are actively fulfilled by. Not the other way around, the power of the state does not originally derive power from popular consent - popular consent is a rather trivial thing that is easily molded and changed - and does actively change through different historical epochs within the right circumstances. Our democratic politics does not derive from liberalism (which states legitimacy is derived from consent of the people), but from a fundamental understanding of the democratic nature of revolutionary proletarian consciousness.

-

If they are worse since they are reactionary "even within capitalism", does this mean that larger businesses aren't necessarily reactionary within capitalism?

LinksRadikal

The bourgeoisie is not reactionary solely within capitalism as they are in power. From what basis would they be reactionary? Why would the hegemonic bourgeoisie possess the desire to turn back the wheels of time (which is impossible, but that's besides the point)? The bourgeoisie becomes reactionary almost always solely in the midst of the class conscious proletariat which attempts to abolish the existing order. The hegemonic liberal bourgeoisie can also take a reactionary role in those circumstances where the demands of capital necessitate it. This can be seen historically, with fascism being distinguished by the unification of Bourgeois and petty bourgeois interests.

-

For starters, you can address the point I made about how, if class lines are clear to everybody, including workers, then why do those people adopt a populist cross-class slogan about the 99%? Are you suggesting that workers secretly know about layers of middle-class people, part of the upper half of the 99%, not being proletarians, but instead openly adopt the cross-class slogan for some specific reason? Or are you prepared to accept my point that, while inequality in general is clear, class lines are not clearly understood by many, perhaps most, workers?

Five Year Plan

While here I don't think I can agree with Jimmie Higgins, I think when he claims class lines are clear, they are clear as far as class being defined as the wealthy and those who aren't wealthy. While completely anti-Marxist, this is the general consensus of the populace.

While there is grounds for argument, you're not doing it properly. Once again you're arguing with a straw man, which isn't surprising as it is a distinctive characteristic of your posts, it would now seem.

131

-

I think this is the quote he was referring to

Frankly, in practical terms it's pretty easy to see where the class lines are. People who are anti-wal-mart who think workers there are "dupes" and "slaves" and pose "buy local" on the one hand, people who think that wal-mart workers should organize and (if they aren't social democrats or just trade unionists) have international solidarity and organizing throughout the whole circuit of companies like wal-mart.

Jimmie Higgins

Actually I think you're right - Five Year Plan is formulating a straw man. You claimed that it's easy to see class lines as far as the differences in attitude people have towards people like Wal Mart workers - on one hand we have the petty bourgeois consensus, that they are "sheeple" and on the other you have those who call for workers to organize (in other words, trade union consciousness). I think that it is easy to see the class lines here. What he's trying to say is that it's easy for Marxists to see the class lines that divide the occupy movement and the variations in different sentiments.

By some miracle Five Year Plan managed to twist this into a straw man: That it's easy for worker's to see class lines as some kind of argument being made. The fact that I myself overlooked this speaks volumes, he's a master at obfuscating arguments and taking them out of context. It could be trolling, who knows. But this is completely a straw man, what FYP is saying has nothing to do with anything.

-

Ah, yes. You again. IF Jimmie's argument is that workers often instinctively know where the class lines are in specific, concrete instances of struggle, such as in supporting or opposing the organizing of workers at a Wal-Mart then that's one thing, though he would have to more precisely formulate his argument. (And even then, the argument itself is problematic.) It's another thing to say that class lines are easy to see in general. This is a particularly bad argument to make when we're discussing Occupy, which was where a good number of workers got sucked into the most petty-bourgeois forms of politics, and an incredibly petty-bourgeois slogan that made it seem that only the greatest excesses of capitalism were the problem, rather than capitalism itself. If class lines were indeed easy to see, then workers simply ignored them during the Occupy movement. My question to JH was, why? And does he agree that that was a bad thing?

Five Year Plan

It's not about workers seeing class lines, *trade union* consciousness develops organically. The difference in attitude toward wal Mart workers outlined by JH is real and identifiable, and yes it reflects different class interests. Proletarian attitudes exist, but are often muddied into the heap pile with petty bourgeois and reactionary views. Thus the necessity of revolutionary consciousness, which JH claims they do not currently possess.

132

But yes, frankly class lines are easy to see by Marxists as far as differences in rhetoric go - that doesn't mean they're sophisticated or developed.

-

Your argument rests on the notion that workers have to be conscious of class differences in order to engage in petty trade union struggles which are proletarian in nature.

This reflects a greater poverty in your understanding of class. Marx said "They are doing it, but they don't know it". The big bourgeoisie can fulfill its interests without being aware of class lines. The petty bourgeoisie the same. Actually this is almost always the case really. Ideology does not say I am ideology.

Revolutionary consciousness is when workers understand the nature of things consciously. And that isn't formed organically.

-

I think you are taking the words way too literally, and actually misconstrue how Lenin used them. If workers "organically" form "trade union consciousness," then why do workers in the United States, especially those in the South, frequently cast their ballots not to unionize in a workplace?

The "trade union consciousness" concept that Lenin hashed out is useful for pointing out the fact that workers "organically" understand that they are disempowered in the workplace, and need to resist that disempowerment actively. The actual political manifestations of that resistance (whether to support a unionizing effort, whether to support this or that strike) aren't automatic at all, and can be the result of the internalization of bourgeois ideas and ideologies by workers in a way that leads them down a political road that objectively harms their own interests as a class: for instance, voting not to unionize a workplace, voting in elections for the candidate of a bourgeois party, and so on. Lenin's point wasn't that trade union consciousness was automatic or obvious, but that it was the most that workers could achieve without mastering and incorporating socialist politics into their struggles.

As Lenin said, "We have said that there could not have been Social-Democratic consciousness among the workers. It would have to be brought to them from without. The history of all countries shows that the working class, exclusively by its own effort, is able [not guaranteed through an easy, obvious process] to develop only trade union consciousness, i.e., the conviction that it is necessary to combine in unions, fight the employers, and strive to compel the government to pass necessary labour legislation, etc"

Five Year Plan

Okay but evidently this is something that often does develop - no one is claiming its a given. Likewise some workers in occupy did possess such tendencies undeniably. The whole point is that nothing is so rigid. Often there are hybrids of confused and obscure rhetoric, often workers just as easily fall into the rhetoric of reactionary sentiments. This is also something Lenin understood very well.

133

Re: Can someone explain the different types of socialism to me?

I'm pretty sure I'm a socialist, but I'm not really sure what kind I am. Could someone please explain some of the different kinds, like democratic socialism, social democracy, liberal socialism, democratic socialism, libertarian socialism etc…

I just want to know what the different branches believe in, and how they differ from each other.

Wuggums47

Revolutionary socialism, reactionary (petite bourgeois) socialism and reformism.

-

The point is that Marx and Engels, within their circumstances, stressed the necessity of participating in elections in order to solidify in the eyes of society proletarian class independence within the field of politics. Essentially they stressed the necessity of the social origin of proletarian class interests to be represented politically, too. The revolutionary proletariat derived from the social circumstances set forth by capitalism, thus revolutionary politics must derive from the political circumstances set forth by capitalism. All the while the proletariat opposes the bourgeois state, but in contrast to the petite bourgeoisie, whose opposition is reactionary in nature - the proletariat opposes the state from premises now in existence.

This school of Socialism dissected with great acuteness the contradictions in the conditions of modern production. It laid bare the hypocritical apologies of economists. It proved, incontrovertibly, the disastrous effects of machinery and division of labour; the concentration of capital and land in a few hands; overproduction and crises; it pointed out the inevitable ruin of the petty bourgeois and peasant, the misery of the proletariat, the anarchy in production, the crying inequalities in the distribution of wealth, the industrial war of extermination between nations, the dissolution of old moral bonds, of the old family relations, of the old nationalities.

In its positive aims, however, this form of Socialism aspires either to restoring the old means of production and of exchange, and with them the old property relations, and the old society, or to cramping the modern means of production and of exchange within the framework of the old property relations that have been, and were bound to be, exploded by those means. In either case, it is both reactionary and Utopian.

Marx on Petty bourgeois socialism

(Is this not reminiscent of much of today's Left, which aspires in the restoration of "old" pre-globalized capitalistl society? While this is not a previous mode of production, the similarities are at least worth taking a look at)

Marx and Marxists after him, however while recognizing this never asserted that the proletarian dictatorship could be established within the legal framework

134

established by the bourgeois state. Because the development of revolutionary politics coincides with the ever evolving dynamic changes in capitalism - Marx among other revolutionaries stressed the necessity of actively participating in politics... Well rather this was not necessarily something that had to be "stressed" as it was a logical result of the nature of the revolutionary movement to begin with. The only function of this, however, is a means of introducing revolutionary consciousness into the very bourgeois-civic society that those in power are trying to defend (rather than operating outside of bourgeois-civic society, as most of the Left today does - not because they refuse to engage in parliamentary politics, but because they are ideologically and programmically disconnected from present circumstances).

While Marx recognized that it could be possible that the proletarian dictatorship could be established peacefully in countries like the United States and England - I think that we can deduce, based on a fundamental understanding of his written and documented understanding of the nature of revolution that all this amounts to is the absence of civil war. Marx knew very well of terror as the logical result of a proletarian revolution, and the absolutely violent nature of the seizure of power and fundamental transformation of power relations. Peaceful, within this context could mean many things. Also it's important to note that just because Marx recognized the possibility of a peaceful seizure of power in the U.S. and England does not mean that circumstances have changed in which this is infinitely less likely with the specialization and advancement of the bourgeoisie's means of retaining power.

It also doesn't mean that engaging parliamentary politics (which could have taken a different form today than a few hundred years ago) today is the only means by which the proletariat can establish political class independence or operate within the framework of political premises now in existence (I.e. that correlate with the new developments in capitalism, rather than previous developments).

Re: Morals are inherently bourgeois?

I've been reading a lot into existentialism and nihilism (completely different, but complimentary, no?) and began to wonder while reading Sartre's Existentialism and Human Emotion how a man so focused on individual resposibility and what frankly appeared to me as Rand-style egoism could subscribe to Marxism-- granted this could be a result of my limited and novel understanding of Existentialism (if so, please politely correct me) but regadless, it got me

135

thinking. Could it be that morality in general is a totally arbitraty concept used basically only to opress, or is there any value at all in a set of intrinsic, unwavering ethics?

nanoki@me.com

All characteristics that distinguish our existing societies are utilized by the bourgeoisie - but that does not make them inherently bourgeois. The communists possess a morality that is distinct not only in composite but in essence from that of the class enemy. To attack morality as a concept is not only dishonest (such "edginess" at times is moralistic in nature, how can one talk of morality when they are for animal rights?) it is to concede to the class enemy universality wherein your only purpose is to negatively supplement them, to 'keep them in check' and so on. To attack morality itself is like to attack the use of arms and violence, to write them off as exclusively weapons of the enemy - like the absence of force and strength, the rejection of a Communist morality is to enfeeble the cause of the revolution, to leave it bare and vulnerable. We will not give the oppressors, the bourgeois pigs unchallenged claim to what is right and wrong and proceed to attack such concepts. With utmost conviction those fighting in the name of Communism must solemnly recognize in their hearts that our cause is truly a just one.

That is not to say we do not oppose moralism, or nonsensical, unscientific notions of morality in relation to society. As materialists, we know very well the ideological nature of morality.

Re: Game of Thrones

If you finish the second season you know that beyond the wall, the organized wildlings vote for their kong, and oppose hereditory rule, slavery, etc. So yeah

Also, Khal Drogo is a scum rapist but it would be entertaining to see him invade the seven kingdoms amdhave a chat with Joffrey

-

136

Arya, her swordsman, the watch guy who saved her, the badass assassin who grantrd her three deaths, are all badass imo. Arya seems to associate with the coolest mofos

-

I recall the wildling girl who saved Jon Snow said they choose their leaders.

Anyway, Stannis Baratheon is also really awesome. Apparently, it said in the books that he didn't tolerate rape or murder when seiging a city.

-

Ya, swordsman

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

-

Until season 3, breaking bad will do.

-

I really like the allegory, Beric Dondarjan as florian Geyer and Thoros of myr as muntzer. Maybe Stannis is like muntzers ideal holy Roman emperor.

What I really liked is how dorne is portrayed as more sexually progressive, which is pretty unique as far as fantasy goes.

-

Can someone explain to me why Game of Thrones is enjoyable? What about it makes it unique etc. etc.

Rocinante

It's a very finely detailed, consistent fantasy world with incredibly likable characters, unapologetic realism as well as phenomenal visual effects and aesthetic appeal.

Personally I enjoyed HBO's Rome better, though. It was actually from Rome that Game of Thrones(as a show) was influenced, George Martin was a huge fan of it.

137

Re: question to the guys: Feminist or ally?

Neither. The term "feminist" is associated with theories, originating in the New Left, that posit that women are a class and/or that the structural oppression of women transcends class society. The term "ally" presupposes a certain model of struggle that I consider completely incorrect.

870

This is new to me. Could you provide a source? I have never heard this. You could be correct, but I cannot seem to find anything that would suggest this.

138

Re: How proletarian was the Chinese revolution?

Question directly at the adherents of non-socialist theories of Maoist China, left-communists, anarchists, orthodox Marxists, council communists and what have you.

The Russian revolution was generally regarded as a proletarian revolution, what about the Chinese revolution? I'm not particularly well-read into the subject, and the period, especially around the Cultural Revolution, strikes me as a chaotic mess with several factions within the Communist Party, Red Guards, the PLA, revolutionary committees, and whatnot all struggling for power and hegemony.

“in the interests of stability and order, the PLA allied with cadres on the revolutionary committees against the more radical organisations of the masses.[17] Therefore, at the end of September 1968, only revolutionary committees in Shaanxi and Hubei provinces were chaired by civilians.[18] Furthermore, the majority of those that sat on the revolutionary committees as representatives of the people were those who had had a stake in the pre-Cultural Revolution order of things rather than radicals from the movement itself.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Committee_%28China%29

Whom were these radicals? Red Guards? Were they 'radical' in a Marxist sense and were they truly an organisation of the masses?

(the source listed is a book by Maurice Meisner)

But the Stalinist leaders of the peasant Red Army had no perspective of leading the workers to power as did Lenin and Trotsky in 1917. When Mao's peasant armies arrived at the cities, and the workers spontaneously occupied the factories and greeted Mao's armies with red flags, Mao gave the order that these demonstrations should be suppressed and the workers were shot.

http://www.newyouth.com/index.php?op...=121&Itemid=60

1.Was there truly a spontaneous movement of factory occupations by workers?

2.Were they really suppressed by Mao's followers?

What's the general consensus of left-communists about the class character of the Chinese revolution?

What's the general consensus of orthodox Marxists about the class character of the Chinese revolution?

Etc.

Tim Cornelis

139

It was a romantic bourgeois revolution.

-

The system was not reshuffled as it (cultural revolution) destroyed the remnants of feudalism both socially and ideologically. It was for that reason a romantic bourgeois revolution. Today's China is a natural and logical result of the cultural revolution, just as Louis-Napoleons France was a logical result of the French revolution. The stormy alterations of (bourgeois) revolution create a sense of change and cataclysm, and then it all dies down and the social order finds its shell and becomes what it needs to in accordance with reproducing social relations.

Re: What is the point of competition?

If we all are living in the same society together, how does competing against one another accomplish anything. It

140

seems pretty counterproductive and wasteful to always be against one another. Wouldn't mutual aid and cooperation be a heck of a lot smarter and more efficient? What are your thoughts capitalists?

Loony Le Fist

I think the dichotomy of things so long lasting and integral to human behavior - between competition and mutual aid with regard to very specific social epochs like capitalism and a post-capitalist society (phenomena which is about a few centuries old) is rather ridiculous. The existence competition and "cooperation" are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Capitalist society is not even close to being uniquely distinguished by competition in principle, to be honest.

-

They aren't mutually exclusive, but that wasn't my argument. My argument was that they undercut one another. Cooperation leads to increased efficiency. Competition cannot lead to long term efficiency. Only fits and starts of efficiency. That is precisely why full employment or maximal efficiency can never be realized under capitalism. It is an absolutely dumb system. People say that communism only works in theory. Unfortunately capitalism fails in theory, meaning it fails worse in practice.

Loony Le Fist

The typical liberal argument is that competition works off of the achievements of each competitor to create new forms of 'innovation' and perfects efficiency in the process of one business competing to make their product better than the other. The problem with this is that the entities (buisnesses) are not competing to make the most useful or efficient product from the perspective of the commons, but to cater to the wants of consumers that does not violate profit or the ability to reintroduce more products for consumers to buy, whether they are necessary or not. Another problem is that the desires of the consumer can be shaped and changed artificially - this has been shown through the use of psychology in advertising and so on.

Overall in principle there is nothing wrong with competition. If we imagine an abstract post capitalist society (which is not reflective of any reality by merit of simply being abstract, but for the sake of argument) we can imagine different entities competing to make the best goods in order to win a trophy or some other nonsense - there is nothing wrong with this in principle. The point is why things are produced in the first place, for what reason.

141

142

Re: How would Communists go about clearing up their reputation?

Well you definitely aren't doing your "Orthodox Marxism" (TM) any favours by explicitly linking it to Menshevism of people like Dan or Portugeis. Usually the connection was merely implied.

870

There are Neo mensheviks who exist today - look at the SPGB and their sympathizers. The fact is that in a sea of straw men accusations it is hard to recognize the slander against revivalists as false - so logically there are some users who falsely identify with those in the Revolutionary Marxists here. Orthodox Marxist revivalists are not attempting to reintroduce the stepping stones to Socialist opportunism - such an implication or connection is nothing short of lazy and ignorant.

Mind you that even before Kautskys renege Lenin and the Bolsheviks had opposed the Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries. It was kautsky who began to sympathize with them only after his betrayal.

143

Re: Fascist Government

Are atheism and Christianity related now?

The Fundamental Attribution Error

Actually yes, they are. But that's besides the point.

Fascism is cosmetically the appropriation of the socialist revolutionary facade in order to satisfy the worker's revolutionary sentiments.

Re: What Are You Watching III

I recommend all of you watch Snowpiercer. Any radical should.

144

Re: Classical Marxism today

This reminds me of those "classical" Marxists who believe that Marx's conception of the Asiatic mode of production is completely valid and true.

MEGAMANTROTSKY

Like who? Do you even know what classical Marxism is?

Hint: it's not a silly internet revleft tendency - it's a term used to describe Marx and Engels's works, Marxism without the developments that came after they died. No one has ever claimed to be a "classical Marxist" as this is impossible. If one talks about classical Marxism, it's about returning to the basics and re evaluating them within our present conditions, not adopting some strict absurd doctrine that disallows any recognition or concurrence with Marxists after Marx and Engels. For fucks sake the things internet or fashion leftists say never cease to amaze me....

MEGAMEGAMEGAMANTROTSKY... give me a fucking break.

-

Him: "This reminds me of those 'classical Marxists'..."

 

145

Like who the fuck is he referring to? Who refers to themselves in such a way?

-

It's best just to humor him. Apparently he finds his e-struggles important.

Василиса Прекра

All you do is troll here. That's all you do. And you've admitted it. It's cute, but it's getting old. These aren't struggles, and yes they are rather futile but it's (this website) a field of discussion. If you don't like that, or think that's silly, then stop posting.

-

Maybe you should ask him and permit him to respond before assuming all sorts of answers he never gave, then use those imagined answers as a rationale to launch into a totally uncalled for spate of nastiness.

Five Year Plan

Okay, sure, let's have him answer it then. I'd be intrigued if it was something other than what it's painfully obviously intended to be. He was most likely referring to self proclaimed Orthodox Marxists like myself in regards to the cannibalism thread, and you all know that. And if he wasn't, then he was literally just talking out of his ass.

-

And your grounds for saying your supposition was obvious is...? And how do you know he was talking out of his ass, when you haven't given him time to clarify what he was intending to say in the first place? This is what people here mean when we talk about you shitposting all over the fucking forum. Just stop, man. It's embarrassing to read.

Five Year Plan

So you think it's reasonable to assume that any form of clarification could make the phrase "Reminds me of those 'classical Marxists'..." any less ridiculous?

Use your imagination, what explanation COULD excuse this?

-

I'll gladly answer it. Just keep your trinitrotoluene outbursts to yourself next time. I won't be holding my breath, though.

I was making fun of those who consider themselves to be adherents of Marxism, but are only dogmatists and don't offer anything more than old wine served in new bottles. These so-called "Marxists" only pay attention to what Marx & Engels said and not at all to their philosophical method, thus making whatever ideas they have walking anachronisms. That is why I brought up Marx's interesting, but ultimately abortive conception of the "Asiatic" mode of production. The moment one puts on historical blinders is the moment Marxism ceases to be a science.

I hope this is clear enough for you, and anyone else that may have misconstrued my meaning. Though I'm betting dollars to doughnuts that it was only you.

P.S. If you have any problems with my username or me personally, send it to me in a PM.

MEGAMANTROTSKY

Oh? And why are they "Classical Marxists" as opposed to Classical Marxists? The

146

former implies they are self proclaimed. Also, what exactly are you referring to? Can you provide some examples? Or are you talking out of your ass?

-

This reminds me of those "classical" Marxists who believe that Marx's conception of the Asiatic mode of production is completely valid and true.

MEGAMANTROTSKY

Which ones, MEGAMAN?

-

Obviously, I put "classical" in quotes (and only the word classical, something you continue to ignore), because they aren't really classical. In the first place, classical refers to an exemplary standard that has been long established. Keeping this definition in mind, Marx & Engels are not the only ones we should turn to. Lenin, Mehring, Luxemburg and Trotsky, among others of that period, would all fit into that definition since they made huge theoretical and practical advances at a time when the class struggle was at a fever pitch.

Furthermore, as I said in the previous post, these people also treat Marx as a Christian fundamentalist would treat the bible. The ICFI is an example of a group that I have in mind. At the end of (almost) all of their articles, they lifelessly repeat the necessity of working-class struggle, or show a degree of hero-worship for Trotsky's ideas that I'm sure that he would have found disgusting. Another political group that came to mind is the SWP after Trotsky died, which abandoned training in dialectics and believed that maintaining a 'correct' political line was all that was necessary. I could go on, but I won't. I think I have made my meaning clear enough even for you now.

In short--classical does not mean only Marx & Engels, or dogmatically adhering to what they or other revolutionaries wrote. The people I referred to unfortunately do both of these things and worse. Such are the reasons I put quote marks around the word 'classical' in an attempt at irony.

P.S. The vindictive use of my username is really not necessary.

MEGAMANTROTSKY

Oh, that clarifies everything. Tacit reference to Trotskyist organizations as adherents of classical Marxism is surely relevant to the usage of the term within the context of this thread, and certainly makes complete sense.

My bad. You were right all along.

147

Re: 'Marxist' cults.

7And mainstream acceptance

Mistress Sinistra

More importantly social legitimacy - how effective they are in reproducing existing conditions.

-

Tim is beyond correct in his accusation that 870 espouses cult rhetoric. 870 is a sympathizer of the Spartacus League, if there was ever an organization that embodied what we call 1960's "Marxist cults" it would be them. Fact of the matter is that this is not a personal attack - It's something that goes beyond 870.

Funny that he is allowed to mindlessly accuse others of being social democrats (All because the word social democrat had different connotations a hundred years ago - I guess Lenin, Luxemburg and so on are social democrats too) and all sorts of slanderous filth and yet this is casually passed off as legitimate political discussion and not "sub political jabs". I guess petty bourgeois Trotskyist cults are immune from legitimate criticism while the CPGB is predisposed to appeal to social democrats. And saying that organizations like the Sparts have cultish tendencies is NOT slander, it is a most obvious truth if one understands any meaningful sense of the word cult.

More importantly however, I think that we should understand all cults (which did not exist before the counter-culture) as being inherently petty bourgeois in nature, as reactionary. Communists do not "drop out" of the social conditions of life, rather Communism is a result of the contradictions of the social conditions of life.

7 The difference between a cult and a religion is size. communer

148

Therefore to drop out is to drop out of the class struggle. Of course several obscure post modern degenerate 'Marxist' theories would have it so somehow conditions post WWII are somehow special in that it is merely a battle between capitalism and humanity, or that everything that is a part of bourgeois society, everything about our present condition is bad including "decadent" mass media (music, etc.) is poisonous and counter-revolutionary unless it is derived from the cult itself.

-

If you don't see 870 making political criticisms of the Lihites and other soci...

Yes, such baseless, slanderous attacks with no bearing in reality are "political criticisms" while the legitimate assertion that the organizations which he considers genuinely revolutionary possess cult like characteristics is a 'personal attack'. Well very well then, it would appear that personal attacks are infinitely more substantial and meaningful as criticisms than what you call "political criticisms".

-

I'm sure this post, in which you conveniently accuse the organization with which 870 sympathizes of being a cult,

has nothing whatsoever to do with the bad blood that exists between you two. And coming as it does from a person who rambles on and on about baptism and being reborn and communist spirits and the like, the accusation of being a cult is particularly rich.

Five Year Plan

Actually the bad blood began as a result of my accusation that organizations like the Sparts were cults, so your implication is plainly wrong.

Once again, you have proven that you are only capable of straw-men arguments. This has been observed in other threads too, and I'm not the first person to recognize it (Jimmie Higgins, etc.). I have never spoken of "baptism", I spoke in terms of philosophy - the Christian logic of being reborn (as opposed the pagan logic of knowing your place within the hierarchical order) as something which is not worth renouncing for Communists.

But of coarse this is washed off as "mysticism" and "Spirits blah blah blah". You're incapable of comprehending words and understanding them within their respective contexts.

A spectre is haunting Europe — the spectre of communism. All the powers of old Europe have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre: Pope and Tsar, Metternich and Guizot, French Radicals and German police-spies.

Marx

These are the first words of the Communist Manifesto. Marx, among several other

149

Marxists referred to the Communist spirit or the "spectre" of Communism. But of coarse 870 would interpret this as literally an actual ghost that Marx believed Communism took the form of. In his inability to confront words for what they mean, he must construe other meanings in order to create a viable argument.

-

870 made a criticism of the CPGB's program. That is a political criticism.

Five Year Plan

The only criticism he made was that it was "too vague". in criticizing the program of the organization he sympathizes with, and the countless others which posses similar characteristics - we claim that they are reflective of a greater ideological pathology. That is not a personal attack.

-

Where Marx would occasionally employ a well-placed metaphor in his writings, you smother your posts with this non-sensical verbiage. People who want an example can see my signature. You are a parody of everything they stood for, really.

Five Year Plan

Yes but the Communist spirit is not a metaphor, apparently, it is a signification that I actually believe in supernatural phenomena. Only someone as theoretically adept in the profession of truthfully dissecting my posts could come to such a conclusion, excuse everyone else who has not run amok with such nonsensical accusations.

As for your accusations of cult-hood, I would simply ask what I have asked everybody else here. Define cult, and show your evidence that the Spartacist (not Spartacus) tendency fits it.

Five Year Plan

A cult is an organization with an idea system in place, practices, traditions and rituals that operates outside of the confines of society. Furthermore such an organization develops not as a result of a social relationship to production that refuses to be integrated into a larger one (I.e. like remote tribes in the Amazon) but from those that "drop out" of real-existing society.

It's much more complicated than that, but this is how I would define a cult. And the Spartacists fit perfectly within this paradigm. The pre-requisites for mass mobilization are non-existent, instead the organization is reserved from those "class concious revolutionaries" who agree with the ultimately exclusive doctrine of the organization. Further practices, such as the regulation of personal lives (in matters such as marriage) are also reflective of this. The whole of society, the whole of our present condition, including its contradictions is deemed "reactionary" or "counter-revolutionary".

150

These cult-like organizaitons are the modern emulation of petty bourgeois socialism

This school of Socialism dissected with great acuteness the contradictions in the conditions of modern production. It laid bare the hypocritical apologies of economists. It proved, incontrovertibly, the disastrous effects of machinery and division of labour; the concentration of capital and land in a few hands; overproduction and crises; it pointed out the inevitable ruin of the petty bourgeois and peasant, the misery of the proletariat, the anarchy in production, the crying inequalities in the distribution of wealth, the industrial war of extermination between nations, the dissolution of old moral bonds, of the old family relations, of the old nationalities.

In its positive aims, however, this form of Socialism aspires either to restoring the old means of production and of exchange, and with them the old property relations, and the old society, or to cramping the modern means of production and of exchange within the framework of the old property relations that have been, and were bound to be, exploded by those means. In either case, it is both reactionary and Utopian.

Marx

There are a few differences - sexual morality is one of them. Another important thing to remember is that while they do not seek to retort to a previous mode of production, they do seek to retort to a previous condition - pre-neoliberal - dare I say pre-WWII capitalism in the sense that this is where they derive all of their ideological rhetoric - within our present condition it can only take a petty bourgeois character.

-

Your "criticism" of the SL is that it's a cult. Now who here is being sub-political and ideologically "pathological"?

Five Year Plan

Very well then, so if all criticism that is based on the class character of said organizations (in this case, I claim the Spartacists are petty bourgeois) - then 870 must recognize that the CPGB are proletarian in nature, as anything otherwise would render such a criticism as "sub political".

Yes I do not criticize the SL as a means of "constructive criticism". They are a petty bourgeois cult - they are reactionary in nature with no place in the future of Communism. I don't care if you want to write that off as a personal attack, truth is truth.

-

Where is your evidence that the SL exists or operates "outside the confines of society"? What does that even mean, that they have a compound in Waco, where they are stockpiling weapons?

The rest of your argument is just that you are peeved that the SL doesn't accept into its organization every worker that goes on strike or attends a demonstration. That's different than "operating outside the confines of society," however. It's a political criticism, but since you know you don't have the theoretical chops to pursue that argument to its conclusion, you wrap it up in subpolitical slander.

151

Five Year Plan

They operate outside of the confines of society not on this literal, physical sense (as though they live in outer space) but they have practices, norms and standards which only function within the confines of their organization. While any revolutionary organization posses converse practices and standards, these are derived from the revolutionary struggle itself, the proletarian movement itself which is a result of society's contradictions. A revolutionary organization therefore does not operate "outside" of society in this same sense. All other forms of deviant ideological behavior, therefore, is indistinguishable from any other backwoods cult (funny that they sympathize and support actual backwoods cults against the big bourgeois state which forcibly seeks to integrate them into the poisonous bourgeois society).

Now if the Spartacists were an honest group of intellectuals who seek to form a group to discuss their ideas, this would be another story. But they claim to be a vehicle for revolution, they claim to be a political organization. I will admit I am not entirely familar with the structure and practices of the CPGB, but what I know is that they are not a cult. They are a broad organization that recognizes its very real limitations that is open to different ideas and discussions pertaining to the revival of the Left.

-

I'm starting to think the prerequisite for being a 'Marxist cult,' in the minds of most here, is to be an organization comprised of principled Leninists. Suppose I'll side with the 'cults' in that case.

Old Bull Lee

This is especially rich, considering that Leninism is dead and has long been dead. It is therefore recognizable that such "principled Leninism" derives not from present circumstances but from previous ones. It's for that reason that they are a cult (or partially the reason). The fact that it has no social application, that it is incapable of mass mobilization is why. The strict doctrine of the Bolsheviks, conversely, was forged in the fires of class struggle, it had derived from the conditions by which it operated within.

Re: Dawn of the Planet of the Apes

I saw this movie last night and it was fantastic! I don't want to give anything away but I couldn't have asked for more. I think that communists especially have something invested in the movie, but I won't give away what in particular. Basically, if you haven't seen it or the one previous, watch them both.

152

The Jay

I disagree. While the first had strong communist connotations, this one is conversely very conservative.

One of the most iconic scenes was Caesar wiping away the symbol of the window - a gesture that he identifies (not sympathizes) with the plight of his brethren and that he refuses to live comfortably as a pet. What this scene meant was that caesars developing revolutionary attitude wasn't simply a result of bad conditions being imposed on him or cognitive dissonance. That going back to his comfortable life will not satisfy his desire to end injustice. What this translates into is the revolutionary consciousness that went beyond just being a reflection of the Tsars brutality, even if it was a flowery liberal democracy would their cause remain just. That's largely why the first one was unique as far as movies about rebellion go.

In the newest one, Caesar reintroduces the window symbol to signify he was wrong all along, and that being a pet was really better after all. Another problem was his role as a monarch establishing hereditary rule and the big bad sinister Koba trying to ruin his legitimate royal reign. Sounds like a Disney movie like that movie Anastasia with Rasputin trying to foil the harmonious and righteous royal family's rule. I think the movie was overall stupid aside from all of that as everything that transpired was unnecessary to have its own film.

Re: Britain - the Organized Ruling Class

Peadophile Ring

The innate horror and rottenness of family relations is expressed by the very defenders of the sacred family themselves. Lenin rightfully noticed the hypocritical nature of bourgeois family values.

"The constraint of bourgeois marriage and the family laws of bourgeois states

153

accentuate these evils and conflicts. It is the force of ‘holy property’. It sanctifies venality, degradation, filth. And the conventional hypocrisy of honest bourgeois society does the rest. People are beginning to protest against the prevailing rottenness and falseness, and the feelings of an individual change rapidly"

(From his interview with Clara Zetkin)

But what more could you expect from the holy defenders of individual domination, domestic slavery and the autonomy of the patriarchal man to do as he pleases, if not acts such as these?

Re: Today I Just Learned that Communism and Anarchism are Pointless Dreams

I remember back in high school I was in environmental science class and our teacher was a highly knowledgeable, relatively honest man. The topic came up of Malthus and human populations and interestingly enough he also included Marx as a counter argument to Malthus's theories. Obviously it was something along the lines of "if we create equal income distribution overpopulation is impossible" and to that he agreed. He went on to say, in a tired sigh that the problem Is that humans are lazy and that they won't have any reason to work, in such a society.

My point is that if this is the only objection they have to Communism, we can have a revolution tomorrow.

-

why is everyone so hostile to laziness? i should hope in a communist society we should all look like the laziest of

154

the lazy compared to work ethics today. bcbm

Even if that is true, following any revolution work is going to be of dire importance. The point is not work itself as something that we ought to oppose, rather what we presently work for, why we work.

I agree that aversion towards laziness within the modern workplace is irritating. It's pathetic - who am I benefiting here by giving so much of a shit?

Re: Strange question re: 'erotic asphyxiation'

You fuckers need to stop turning my thread into a battlefield for you to dish out your sexual shame, masturbation issues, porn issues, and sexual dysfunctions. K? Thanks!

Five Year Plan

Yes, only Five Year Plan's sexual issues matter.

155

Re: PARIS: Jews flee as Jewish businesses are being smashed, burned and looted over Gaza

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/07/22/france-jewish-shops-riot_n_5608612.html

France's politicians and community leaders have criticised the "intolerable" violence against Paris' Jewish community, after a pro-Palestinian rally led to the vandalizing and looting of Jewish businesses and the burning of cars.

It is the third time in a week where pro-Palestinian activists have clashed with the city's Jewish residents. On Sunday, locals reported chats of "Gas the Jews" and "Kill the Jews", as rioters attacked businesses in the Sarcelles district, known as "little Jerusalem".

Hexen

The problem is the pathology of anti-semitism - not prejudice of even aversion towards Jews, but anti semitism as a definitive ideological universe (that Jews are "in control" and people can think and act like "the Jews") The death of all reason - that there are only those who oppose the Jews and the lackeys of Jews ("Zionists").

156

The difference with other 'anti colonial' phenomena is that this can't be changed with conscious political correctness. We have seen politically correct anti semitism on Iranian state TV or Hamas propaganda. Not to say all who oppose Zionism are anti Semitic, but that often Zionism is used as a replacement for the word Jew (For example, "Zionists control America").

-

Since when was a Jewish shopkeeper in Paris a member of the Israeli nation? Both the petty act of vandalism, and your snarky failed attempt at wit in this thread, presuppose the Zionist view that Jews and Israelis are interchangeable labels. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Five Year Plan

Well that's the point. If Jews outside Israel are being deliberately targeted for the actions of the Israeli state, what does this reveal?

-

It reveals that the people targeting them are buying into Zionist propaganda.

Five Year Plan

That's really a bunch of nonsense. When for example anti-semitic conspiracy theories are being made by the "resistance" is this buying into propaganda too because they forgot to replace "Jew" with "Zionist"? It doesn't matter. deliberately targeting Jewish businesses is not simply anti-semitic because Jews are being targeted, it is anti-semitic because it falls in line with the historical connotations of such acts within Europe. Again, anti-semitism is far beyond aversion towards Jews. David Icke's theories on Reptilian shapeshifters is infinitely more anti-semitic than some uneducated peasant saying he thinks Jews are smelly.

-

No, the window-smashers are obviously not freedom fighters. As I stated earlier, they're buying into the same bullshit propaganda that you are peddling in this thread: that the Israeli state represents "the Jews," and that therefore a threat to the state of Israel is a threat of ethnic cleansing against "the Jews."

Five Year Plan

It isn't Israeli propaganda. Association of Jews with the Israeli state would happen with or without Israelis officially claiming to represent Jews globally. Any idiot can see this.

-

People who smash the store windows of non-Israeli Jews, in retaliation for anger about what the Israeli state is doing, are in fact buying into the Zionist myth that Israel is the rightful Jewish homeland, representative of and home to all Jewish people. Some who buy into the myth do so to support Israel, and others do so in a way that leads them to engage in anti-semitic behavior.

Five Year Plan

Or perhaps if we ground ourselves in actual reality we can see that association of

157

Jews with the Israeli state is tied to the notion that Jews are international agents of Israeli interests with no regard for their "host" countries - or that perhaps Israel is an embodiment of Jewish Masonic whatever international interests. While Zionism may propose that Israel seeks to protect Jews across the world it does not propose that it is part of an international conspiracy, or that all Jews within their respective countires owe allegiance to Israel. If they do, I'd be interested in seeing where they have said this. Speaking as someone who has experience with Arab anti-semitic sentiments I highly doubt such attacks were made because of the influence of Zionist rhetoric.

Sure it sounds flowery, but overall your explanation is weak and I think you know that too.

-

Of course some people associate Jews with "international agents of Israeli interests, with no regard for their host countries." And to the extent that they do so, they are buying into the Zionist myth that Israel is synonymous with "the Jews."

You seem to want to redefine Zionism so that it only encompasses people who view it positively.

Five Year Plan

It's like saying that racism derives from people buying into black nationalist propaganda a la NBPP or the Nation of Islam that proclaims Africans ought to be separated or whatever. The source of their sentiments has nothing to do with Zionism, regardless of whether Zionism entails association of Israel with the Jews - that may be the case, but it is far from why.

-

Firstly, Zionism and black nationalism really can't be analogized fairly here, since black nationalists aren't claiming ownership of a settler-colonial state anywhere in the world. But setting that aside, I'm not saying Zionism is the origin of anti-Jewish sentiments any more than black nationalism was the origin of racism against black people.

I would identify both Zionism and black nationalism as responses to anti-Jewish and anti-black sentiments, but they are reactions that actually reinforce some of the basic assumptions of those racists: namely that race and ethnicity point to anything beyond ideological abstractions. What you end up with is not only the absurd practice of a Brooklyn boy born "Jewish," being granted automatic citizenship to a state, while old Arab women born within the boundaries of that state aren't allowed to return to their place of birth because they aren't of the right ethnicity. You also end up with people smashing shop windows of Jews who might actually be anti-Zionist, but are unfortunate enough to live in a world where a highly oppressive settler state is claiming to represent them regardless of their feelings. Five Year Plan

I think you're ignoring the psychological dimension of anti-semitism, FYP which associates Jews as actively attempting to support the Israeli state, making that connection has nothing to do with Zionist rhetoric. The notion that Jews are

158

supporting the Israeli state from different "fronts" (which leads to theories about ZOG) has absolutely nothing to do with the identification of the Israeli state with Jews posited by Zionism. And I'm arguing from experience with people like this, I know the mentality a lot better than you do.

-

Advocates of Zionism reinforce the same racialized reification that anti-semites latch onto, for whatever psychological or political reasons, in their reactionary behavior.

Five Year Plan

More evidence of the poverty of your understanding of anti semitism. No Zionists do not propose that they are out for world domination, or that they actively try to infiltrate societies on behalf of Israel and so on. What you say is as valid as saying black gangsters reinforce the same stereotypes that form a component of racism - is this the CAUSE of racism though? I think not.

You don't understand anti semitism - it is a form of paranoia. Again, you obviously have no experience engaging Arab anti Semites or their pervasive attitudes. It is not about biological race or any such drivel. You sound like every ignorant liberal who wants the conflict to conform to their bankrupt sensitivities.

To say Zionism is responsible for anti semitism is not only refutable, it is undeniably wrong.

-

When did I ever say that Zionists propose that they are out for world domination? I said that both Zionists and anti- semites share the same assumption about reified racial and ethnic categories that they then link to the existence of a nation-state.

Five Year Plan

They both have assumptions about the ethnic implications of the Israeli state on a global level - but how important, or relevant is this? They might both think the sky is blue, too.

Well almost all adherents of bourgeois ideology have some assumption about "reifed racial and ethnic categories that are linked to the existence of a nation- state". You seem to be under the impression that anti-semitism is solely defined by association of Jews with the israeli state. The point is what exactly such an association constitutes as, what the nature of such a conflation is. Is it Israel as a homeland and protector of the world's Jewry, or are the world's Jewry secret agents of the external other (in this case the Israeli state) infecting their host countries

159

with their interests in world domination. The archetype is the same, if we replace Israel with international banking, masonry, or what have you, the pattern is still the same.

-

Condemning bourgeois-nationalist assumptions is pretty damned relevant if you consider yourself a Marxist. The working class having no interests apart from the (global) proletariat as a whole, and all that stuff.

Five Year Plan

Like what the FUCK are you talking about? They are irrelevant as far as anti- semitism (and its relation to zionism) goes. There are real distinguishable characteristics of anti-semitism that go beyond bourgeois-nationalism. For fuck's sake! Why do I have to explain myself like this, as though im ACTUALLY revising my positoin?

What the fuck were we talking about Five Year Plan? Was it bourgeois-nationalism and it's relationship to the global proletariat, or how Zionism isn't responisble for anti-semitism?

So within the context of that discussion, if I say "This is not relevant", ITS NOT RELEVANT AS FAR AS ATTEMPTING TO DRAW SOME KIND OF CONNECTION BETWEEN ZIONISM AND ANTI-SEMITISM, IT DOESN'T SIGNIFY THAT ONE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE OTHER.

you ACTUALLY turned this into another semantic argument. if you're trolling, you win, you actually pissed me off. Just admit you're trolling. I don't want to believe someone actually possesses such a bizarre and infantile thought process. -

To add insult to injury, he COMPLETELY took it out of context by ignoring this, which explained the initial sentence:

Well almost all adherents of bourgeois ideology have some assumption about "reifed racial and ethnic categories that are linked to the existence of a nation- state". You seem to be under the impression that anti-semitism is solely defined by association of Jews with the israeli state. The point is what exactly such an association constitutes as, what the nature of such a conflation is. Is it Israel as a homeland and protector of the world's Jewry, or are the world's Jewry secret agents of the external other (in this case the Israeli state) infecting their host countries with their interests in world domination. The

160

archetype is the same, if we replace Israel with international banking, masonry, or what have you, the pattern is still the same.

-

In a thread about a Jewish shopkeeper who had his windows smashed out of anger over the Israeli incursion into Gaza, I think it's pretty obvious that people's linking reified ethnic constructs to nation-states is, in this case anyway, relevant to outbursts of anti-semitism.

Five Year Plan

Anti-semitism existed long before the Jews were a part of any sort of nation-state, so again what the fuck are you talking about? It's not relevant, it's not relevant to my posts, It's not relevant to my actual argument either. Zionism does not "reinforce" anti semitism, even if they both carry underlying presumptions about nation-states and their legitimacy. K?

-

We're talking about an incident where Jewish Parisian shopowners are having their windows smashed out of anger over the Zionist Israeli state's incursion into Gaza. You're right that anti-semitism isn't necessarily caused by any nation-state, but in this case it is.

Five Year Plan

While Arab anti-semitism in general could have derived from existence of the Israeli nation-state (which is debatable, considring the Damascus affair as well as the relationship Arab anti-colonialism and Fascism during WWII) that does not mean the nature of this anti-semitism is simply defined by anger or hatred towards Israel. Anti-semitism develops and it reacts cyclically with anti-Israel sentiment but that does not mean they are the same. For example many Arabs outside of Palestine are born and raised absolutely despising Israel. Even those who are completely unaffected by Israel's endeavors in Palestine. Islamists in general are inherently anti-semitic as well.

Such acts of anti-semitism are not caused by "Zionist propaganda" but by the pathology of anti-semitsim itself which existed long before Zionism. The adoption and adherence of anti-semitism by some Arabs could very well be a result of the Israel-Palestine conflict but that does not mean it doesn't go beyond simply being angry towards Israel itself. Islamist and Nationalist anti-Zionism is unquestionably and undeniably synonymous with anti-semitism. Quite frankly it's naive, Idealist and lazy to claim that attacks on Jews is a result of "Zionist propaganda" as though it's a double whammy equating anti-Jewish sentiments with Pro-Zionist propaganda.

-

161

Zionism reinforces an element of anti-semitic thought, insofar it affirms the notion of refied racial and ethnic categories, and links those categories the actions of a particular (settler-colonialist) state.

Five Year Plan

This is not unique to Zionism. All forms of nationalism then reinforce "an element" of anti-semitic thought, "insofar it affirms the notion of refined racial and ethnic categories". Anti-semitism is not distinguished by the association of Jews with Israel. Can you get that through your head? The association of all Jews with the

Israeli state by anti-semitism is wholly, and completely different from the association of Jews with the Israeli state by Zionism. While if we just stare lazily at words, sure it is the same. However the social, and ideological realities do not accommodate for our empty and baseless words. The character, the very nature of this association is completely different - therefore no, it does not "reinforce an element of anti-semitic thought".

Now if you want to claim that they are both nationalist in nature (This is not necessarily true - hardcore Islamist anti-semitism is hardly nationalist with its objection to nationally based identities) that's fine, however you would then have to claim that French, or any other nationalism reinforces anti-semitsm, too as they both see legitimacy in the notion of a nation state.

Predictably you will claim that this is false, because Zionism denotes a Jewish nation state while anti-semitsim falls close within this proximity (with Jews as a subject). But as we have already revealed such an association to be completely different - then Zionism "reinforces anti-semitism" just as much as ANY other form of nationalism.

What's the point? Zionism does not uniquely reinforces anti-semitism, there is nothing unique about Zionism that does this. Anti-semites might believe the sky is blue, and Zionists might too. That doesn't mean anything, however. -

Who here argued that anti-semitism is distinguished purely by the association of Jews with Israel?

Five Year Plan

Did I say purely distinguished, or distinguished? Furthermore it is evidence enough that you do not recognize that the association of all Jews with the Israeli state by anti-semitism is wholly, and completely different from the association of Jews with the Israeli state by Zionism

Evidence? This here:

162

Why would I have to claim that French nationalism reinforces anti-semitism? Does France claim to represent all the Jewish people? If they did, then they would reinforce a reified notion of "Jewishness" that is a necessary ingredient in anti-semitism.

Five Year Plan

Because other than recognizing the legitimacy of nation-states and ethnic based politics Zionism does not reinforce anti-semitism. It's irrelevant that Zionism concerns Jews as again such an association is completely different than that with anti-semitism

If people went around bashing in the store windows of Americans that were of French ethnicity, but had never been to France, because of things the French government was doing, I would say that the French government's proclamation that it represents all the French people of the world should be implicated as a causal variable, don't you? Five Year Plan

Well you would be right if the situation was so simple. The French government does rule over France as a country, so even if there were Americans of "French ethnicity" (really what a stupid thing to say, let's just assume you mean first or second generation Frenchmen) they still derived from France, it is reasonable that people would identify them with France even if French nationalism didn't exist - France as a country has existed for quite a long time.

Even if that argument doesn't hold up. It's still nonsensical to claim that the attacks on Jewish businesses were a result of "zionist propaganda" that associates Israel wtih Jews, or in your words that claims to "represent Jews worldwide". It doesn't make a difference as to whether Zionism specifically entails this - this is clearly a case of anti-semitism, and not just because Jews were attacked - it's WHY they were attacked, because they are seen as agents of Zionist interests.

Arabs aren't stupid animals. French Arabs, most of them Algerians have very little to do with Palestine, they don't have relatives there, it's clearly not a personal issue of emotions. They're not going to indiscriminately attack Jews simply because there's a david star on the Israeli flag. You have to understand YES psychologically WHAT PROMPTS THEM TO DO THIS.

ZIONISM does not claim Jews as its international agents. Zionism doesn't claim that Jews across the world serve Zionist interests. It claims to protect or represent the interests of Jews - it doesn't claim all Jews represent the interests of Zionism. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE.

So again, you claim the relevancy here is that Zionism represents the Jewish

163

people. Well Jewish people weren't attacked because Zionists claim to represent them, they were attacked because to the perpetrators they represent the interests of Israel and Zionism rather than the other way around. This has fuck all to do with the conscious declarations of Zionists (who by the way, DON'T claim the latter as true). You don't properly understand how logic works, Five Year Plan, and if you do you're simply ignoring it in order to desperately "cover your ass" regarding an incredibly ignorant and stupid claim you made.

Re: Krav maga and systema

Hello comrades, i would like to ask you about your opinions on krav maga and system as to whether they are practical and if they can really benefit us

The Cleaner

Well no, most martial arts systems are useless when they are catered and sold to people.

But the world's militaries do practice and utilize martial arts in their training,

164

especially their special forces. Its not at all useless.

-

How often do you think navy seals use their hand to hand techniques vs. calling in airstrikes?

Ethics Gradient

There are definite scenarios in which hand to hand combat is of importance to special forces divisions - it's not as if hand to hand combat is some kind of major tactic, but that doesn't mean its useless.

-

What argument have I lost? Is it your claim that the majority of people who complete a krav maga course, do so as IDF hand to hand specialists or something equivalent? Because if not I honestly have no clue what you're talking about

Ethics Gradient

It's undeniable that there's a lot of bullshit martial arts courses that cater to civilians, but that doesn't mean martial arts itself is "useless as far as real fights go". It's just that they are not being taught how exactly to fight in real situations, but are being taught to fight within the parameters of their specific martial arts discipline. Often it is purely aesthetic and yes, isn't really applicable to most fighting scenarios. That doesn't mean the whole of martial arts is useless - often the world's military's will adopt and integrate several different fighting styles into their hand-to hand combat training for every which scenario. Being disciplined in learning balance, controlled and precise attacks, and so on give you a very good advantage in a fight.

Re: Have I got movement for you!

After some thought, I believe I have found a movement most of RevLeft could support.

It was founded in early twentieth-century Russia by moderate socialists and democrats, including close associates and co-thinkers of Kautsky, men (and the odd woman) who had been fighting against Tsarism for decades. It emphasised democracy above all, and denounced every un-democratic action of the Bolsheviks. It also included a lot of anti-imperialist, regionalist and national-liberation groups. Members had a significant presence in the trade unions and the factory committees. They were led by a popular scientific figure. They fought against Bolshevik policies of food requisitioning and one-man management.

870

Kautsky sided with the Bolsheviks against the Mensheviks before his renege.

165

Try harder. The distinguishable characteristics of the Mensheviks (as opposed to the Bolsheviks) was hardly that they were more democratic.

-

The likes of Chomsky and other "democratic socialists" are a close modern emulation of menshevism, often petty bourgeois socialism.

Re: Feminism and Capitalism

Why did feminism arise at about the same time as capitalism? Is it because people were more urbanized and could organize easier? And also could it be due to the fact that women worked outside the home more and could meet more people to organize (before the industrial revolution the manufacturing was done mainly in the home or women would work on the farms, and were largely excluded from artisans guilds so could not acquire the skills needed for doing much work outside that). This is just speculation on my part, I'd like to hear what you guys think.

The Fundamental Attribution Error

For the same reason Communism arose as a result of capitalism

166

Re: the tech utopia nobody wants: why the world nerds are creating will be awful

here ya go

In San Francisco, the centre of the US tech revolution, restaurant workers are lobbying for a minimum wage increase. In response, a conservative lobby group that campaigns on behalf of the restaurant industry threatened to replace the workers with iPads.

Restaurant workers already claim food stamps at twice the rate of the rest of the US population because their wages are so low. Because of this, after they fall prey to the march of the tablets, America's waiters and waitresses could be the subjects of yet another social experiment: in a recent thought-bubble, Google engineer and activist Justine Tunney suggested last month that food stamps should be replaced with Soylent, a grey nutritional slurry mooted as a total meal replacement, to keep poor Americans "healthy and productive".

Soylent was rapidly accepted by the Silicon Valley technorati, who backed the project's Kickstarter to the tune of $1m. They consume it as an exercise in minimalist purity: "what if you never had to worry about food again?" Really, we're looking at the creation of two worlds – and that's theirs. In ours, we'll never have to worry about food again either, because we'll be gulping down mandatory tasteless nutrition sludge we didn't want, after being forced out of a job by a tablet computer.

This conflict – between consumers of technology and the geeks who pull us forward into uncharted sociocultural territory – is starting to become more pointed. We trained ourselves to value Facebook’s "open society" without privacy; we accepted the furtive mobile phone check as appropriate punctuation for a face-to-face conversation; we even put up with 3D cinema for a time. But this is too much.

Now the blowback has arrived. The first signs of the emerging tech utopia we were always told about don't look so great if you can't code. Instead, it's hard to escape the feeling that we're set to fall into obnoxious technological traps predicated on the easy abandonment of basic human experiences like eating or working.

The Soylent slurry, which bypasses the tactile experience of eating, isn't that far away conceptually from Google

167

Glass, which projects data from apps directly onto the retina. And the cherished pantheon of Glass Explorers, the software developers who test drive Glass outside the hermetic confines of Google’s product labs, behave in a similar way to Soylent evangelists.

There are surveillance cameras everywhere, but the operators are operating them remotely; Google Glass straps the CCTV to the operator's face. This was made very real during the saga of Sarah Slocum, who was attacked in a San Francisco bar for wearing Glass. "You're killing the city," a woman said to Slocum before the attack, rehearsing the theme that tech workers are ruining San Francisco's culture. "I wanna get this white trash, this trash on tape", Slocum replied as she had Google's designer frames ripped off her face in the middle of filming.

People's distaste for Glass isn't primarily about privacy, any more than attacks on Google buses in the Bay Area are about road usage. Nor are they a "neo-luddite" fear of disembodied technological encroachment. The backlash against Glass is the implied rejection of the kind of casual sociopathy which leads a person to become a surveillance camera, to put a computer between themselves and their every interaction with other people. The philosophy of Glass is inward looking. It improves the life of the wearer at the expense of those around them.

The shared norms that govern human interaction are fragile enough without that kind of constant interference. We know that, because of the outrage over Facebook’s latest entry into this technological carnival of horrors: the "emotion contagion" experiment, which manipulated the news content certain users saw to toy with their emotions. In response to the outrage, Duncan Watts, a researcher for Microsoft, wrote that:

Remember: the initial trigger for the outrage over the Facebook study was that it manipulated the emotions of users. But we are being manipulated without our knowledge or consent all the time – by advertisers, marketers, politicians

– and we all just accept that as a part of life. The only difference between the Facebook study and everyday life is that the researchers were trying to understand the effect of that manipulation.

In Watts' strange logic, we are manipulated and studied secretly, and resign ourselves to it. In other words, we already agreed to the experiment writ large merely by using Facebook (or for that matter, by being alive in a space where an advertisement is posted). But we don't want it to be too obvious, or we get mad.

"Would you prefer a world in which we are having our emotions manipulated, but where the manipulators ignore the consequences of their own actions?" Watts asked. But to whose benefit?

A divide is growing between the people who wholeheartedly embrace a radically new, radically self-centred vision of human life, and the people who do not. The internal lives of the tech elite, centred on the labour-saving innovations of Silicon Valley, are at odds with semi-atavistic conceptions of how people interact. Traditions and shared values are redundant, inefficient, and must be optimised out of existence.

The backlash against this world is democracy manifesting itself; a tacit rejection of the ideological assumptions underpinning the personal tech revolution. People want to define the structure of their own lives, and Silicon Valley's myriad product lines are an unwelcome intrusion into the way we live and interact with one another – and even the way we eat, sleep and procreate.

A simple fact remains: there is something intrinsically repellant about a world in which our food, jobs and personal relationships are replaced by digital proxies in the name of ultra-efficient disruption. The geeks, with their ready willingness to abandon social norms, are pulling us toward a utopia nobody wants.

bcbm

Creepy. Reminds me of the protein bricks from Snowpiercer.

168

We have without any doubt reached a point in which capitalism has lost its potential for technological progress. Instead technologies are being suppressed, or worse even bastardized on behalf of capital. We have attained a new form of alienation by which technology is alienated from technology itself, where alienation goes far beyond any kind of 'natural essence'.

Re: Kierkegaard

Title. What can you tell me about him and his relevance? How does his form of Christianity relate to Nietzsche's philosophy? As sources of meaning, what makes Kierkegaard's faith any better than Sartre's Anarchism and/or Marxism?

Slavoj Zizek's Balls

All modern revolutionary epochs, from the Jacobins to the Bolsheviks were led by what Kierkegaard described as knights of faith. Sure you can misconstrue this as an assertion that they were literally religious fanatics - a closer look reveals that substituting God with ideological universality - ideological wholeness is perfectly possible. Be they the idea of bourgeois civic virtue or the truth of Communism itself (as far as the real nature of things go, as far as understanding exploitation, whatever).

We take this for granted. The Communist ideological universe is true, but true only insofar as it is a socially based phenomena.

-

Did Tsar Nicholas II knight the Bolsheviks? I am familiar with Sir Paul McCartney, but not Sir Vladimir Lennon.

Five Year Plan

Yes Kierkegaard's Knight of Faith is literally an actual knight. Just stop.

-

Kierkegaard and Nietzsche have very little in common other than a severe distaste for organized religion. Kierkegaard breaks humans down into three basic stages: aesthetic-ethical-religious and posits that the 'leap of faith' is necessary to achieve the final stage and become a 'knight of faith.' This is all related back to depression and anxiety: the leap of faith is a final renunciation of depression and sadness (a leap into the abyss, as Nietzsche might put it), or a final absolution into oneself as God/subject. He also tries to mix doubt and faith together by claiming that one necessitates the other and hence his religion isn't the kind of abject dogmatism that one might find in the church but rather a personal, softer, belief.

Nietzsche would look at this as pure slave morality. What strength is there in Kierkegaard's philosophy? Well, very

169

little, really. There's strength in not becoming a peon of the church or of any major institution - Kierkegaard's religion was indeed a very personal and subjective one. But Nietzsche would argue that that very religion is itself anti-human and backwards; it is filled with resentment: an inability to accept human beings and nature as it is without needing to posit beyond it for acceptance and meaning. Kierkegaard requires outside meaning (God) in order to create a meaningful life for himself. For Nietzsche, this is weak and sad and demonstrates a philosophy of slavery (to God) and self-hatred.

To carry the metaphor: Nietzsche would say that leaping into the abyss is shameful and pathetic, a final renunciation of life and all its splendor. Instead, one ought construct a bridge over the abyss, with oneself as the bridge, in order to reach a place where a human being can be born without the abyss beneath (the 'superman'). To renounce oneself, for Nietzsche, is to renounce life and humanity, to renounce the future and the world. If you recall that, in Nietzsche's philosophy, we are the world-mirror, then this makes perfect sense as the world cannot renounce itself.

Sartre is a whole other ballgame and I don't think he's a very good example for anarchism or Marxism.

Manoir de mes reves

Manoir, what if in the process of radically operating for an outside meaning, you are in reality actualizing yourself in the highest potential? To consciously exalt ourselves we effectively destroy ourselves, we reduce ourselves into nothingness - in ourselves we can only find a lie. This "outside meaning" is the collective manifestation of our social complexity, be it a god, or the Communist universe itself. Without our social relationships to production we are effectively nothing - animals. Truth can never be found within ourselves, we have to find something greater than our own consciousness which can only translate to reflections of our social reality: Ideology. Ideology which is a lie only insofar as it is held by those whose interests it does not embody.

Also we recognize such an otherness as nothing short of deriving from ourselves as humans. So what if the Nietzschean notion of superhuman is impossible when it is pursued in a direct, conscious manner?

We have seen that those who are truly able to operate "independently from the world" are those who put this blind faith in some sort of otherness, an external other that claims universality as a whole. While Nietzsche would recognize this universality as not reflective of objective reality what we can recognize is that this is wrong. In a way it is, as it is reflective of a social reality, just not linguistically in a direct manner.

-

I think that you're right, it really does boil down to the question of why the otherness, ideology, is necessary. Is it possible that our distinct consciousness itself

170

- as humans, necessitates ideology? That as social animals (and not neutral specters with no interests other than to know), we can never truly walk the walk to the tune of objective reality? The social reality itself seems to never suffice - if classes think they are simply fighting to exert their interests, rather than in the name of some kind of otherness which embodies their interests, which has the whole world to claim, wouldn't this be improbable?

But interestingly enough this might lead us to other questions: What if ourselves, rather than being this false-ego of our individual selves (as those vulgarists of Nietzsche would claim, like Ayn rand), can be collective class consciousness or our pure social being, rather than delusions of individual interests that do not coincide with social interests? I think questions like this make Nietzsche someone not to be dismissed among Marxists, especially since we have trouble with the paradox of being unable to be beyond ideology.

Re: Defending Nihilism

171

Russian nihilism was the Yin of the Tsarist apparatus's yang. Because it openly and explicitly rejected any positive program it effectively negatively supplemented everything it claimed to despise about society. It isn't hard to see the class character of nihilism either, as student based and petty bourgeois. To concede to the enemy the whole of society and all of the contradictions of society is to concede Communism directly.

Morality may be subjective, but any Marxist knows it possesses real social characteristics. Morality is a component, an offspring of ideology - ideology which forms out of a social relationship to production which is very real and not subjective. To reject a Communist morality, struggle as true and just is to proclaim your recognition of hegemonic morality as legitimate by which you simply 'oppose' it. It is still ruling ideology, ideology encompasses BOTH what it claims positively, and what it perceives to be it's own opposition, it's negative side.

-

Why does ideology encompass both sides? Not saying I disagree by the way.

Slavoj Zizek's Balls

Ideology must encompass what it opposes it as well in order to truly exist as ideology. Ideology can never simply recognize itself as ideology, ideology is not some a series of grandiose proclamations. Ideology is that which we presume to be a given, ideology defines the very presumptions we have about the world in the first place (FROM WHICH such grandiose positions are expressed).

Ideology functions as a universality that can leave no space for true opposition, it must claim that which opposes it as well. This is what we perceive to be a series of false dichotomies. What I mean to say, however, is that in the process of opposing the cosmetic hegemonic ideology, often times they breathe life into it, they further solidify the ideological presumptions by exalting them in just a different way. For example if we presume that the claim those in power have towards justice, holiness and so on - and simply oppose those things, we are already agreeing with them. Communist ideology, which is affirmative will conversely have its own claim on those things.

172

Re: The Soviet Union Thread

Furthermore, the purge itself created a vast amount of administrative positions that Stalinism quickly filled with layers of technocrats and managerial elites, as the NEP bourgeoisie was also eliminated. Finally, party membership and government office was no longer offered to workers. This process culminated in Stalin calling for the reverence of this new intellectual class at the 18th Party Congress. I could go on, but I won't. I don't understand how any of this can't be described as a "fundamental shift in power". It's not as if Stalin remained in full control of the Soviet Union without any contradictions after the Left Opposition was defeated.

MEGAMANTROTSKY

If the NEP was bound to end, then logically this would have followed with or without Stalin in power. The cosmetic or symbolic obstruction of the legacy of the October revolution is nothing to the real social and ideological degeneration of the October revolution which had occurred many years before the great purges. Saying that the purging of old Bolsheviks somehow signified a change in the Soviet condition is ridiculous - these were the same Bolsheviks that had allied themselves with Stalin and the endeavors of the state. And truly, if they did not, then their

173

execution was warranted after all. What we must recognize is that Stalin himself did not constitute any real independent social interest, Stalin merely represented the failure of the October revolution, Stalin was the solution in that sense - in the attempts of the Soviet state to preserve and defend the revolution (To defend itself) it had destroyed the revolution. -

Naturally, there were many backward changes in the Soviet Union prior to the Congress of 1939 (18th). I never said otherwise. What I was trying to convey is that the Stalinist counterrevolution was completed, and made concrete, by that date. My previous post also makes clear that the destruction of the Bolshevik party and of the NEP-men was not merely a cosmetic change in staff, but Stalinism's efforts to create a pliant bureaucratic state and to fully eliminate all vestiges of October and worker's power. Your conclusion therefore is silly--the Soviet state was not dependent on the working-class base or the program of proletarian revolution when it consolidated its power, but on its suppression. To identify the Stalinist state both as October's gravedigger and its savior makes no sense.

MEGAMANTROTSKY

While it would not be ridiculous to claim that the Great Purges signified the solidification of Stalinist power - what it does not signify is the solidification of the October revolution's failure. What "vestiges" of worker's power were eliminated in the power struggle of the 1930's? What fundamental social implications were the Stalinist purges? None. This is precisely why they can be distinguished from the red terror of the revolution, the latter entailed fundamental changes in class power. They were purely a form of bureaucratic masturbation. The Soviet bureaucracy existed many years before the purges.

It's true that individuals have an impact on how events are shaped, or the character of history itself. That does not, however mean that the October revolution's downfall was simply Stalin's rise to power. There are real factors which allowed the Stalinist rise to power possible - anyone else would have had to face the same problems the Soviet state did under Stalin. You say it makes no sense that the Soviet state was both the gravedigger and the savior of the October revolution (really an ignorant claim) but that is precisely what it was. In the process of attempting to save the revolution the state was actively destroying it. In the process of the state attempting to save itself, the embodiment of the revolution, it had to destroy the revolution itself. It is like Oedipus. Because any attempt to protect the revolution in the conditions present in the Soviet Union would have inevitably lead to it's destruction.

-

In post #278, FYP shows that (a) you conflate the terms counterrevolution and Thermidor, by refusing to draw the

8 Well, no, I think you have things completely backward. I tried to be helpful to the forum by allowing the "Nuh uh! It was capitalist!" discussion to be cordoned into a specific portion of the forum where it belongs,

174

necessary distinctions between them (i.e. Thermidor was a conservative direction of policy as opposed to a full- fledged counterrevolution) and (b) that you even got the date wrong of when that conflation allegedly took place. You made two mistakes that are clearly interlinked. He was not switching topics by drawing attention to this.

MEGAMANTROTSKY

There is a difference between degeneration and counter revolution. The latter can be an effect of the former.

You and Five Year Plan miss the point anyway, you're attacking quite a minor, insignificant mistake - I doubt Trotskyists would consider the revolution to have degenerated if Trotsky had consolidated power rather than have been exiled. It's quite common knowledge that around the date Tim claimed, Trotskyists threw in the towel. Also context is important, look at all of the other dates respective to the currents.

-

Well, yeah, counter-revolution is the result of massive degeneration. What's your point? My point has been that conflating the two things on a chart that is supposed to clarify what various tendencies think is highly problematic.

Trotskyists "threw in the towel" in 1925? There weren't even "Trotskyists" back then. There was Trotsky and various unofficial oppositional factions that certainly did not identify themselves as "Trotskyists." Those oppositional factions continued to operate through the late 1920s. Do you even know what you're talking about, or are you disagreeing for the purpose of disagreeing at this point?

Five Year Plan

What I mean is that Trotskyists today see that date as the red line, I wanted to say throw (not threw) in the towel but then you'd say that doesn't make sense. Are you capable of arguing without isolating stupid semantic mistakes that have fuck all to do with anything?

It is possible to recognize a date in which degeneration starts leading up to counter revolution. In the eyes of most of us, Trotskyists see that date as your "thermidor"

-

instead of cropping up like a weed in practically every other thread. Then you enter the thread, declare it too general to be useful, then rather arrogantly drop down a whole wall of information while pretending that answers all the questions anybody might have. When I try to take your concerns into consideration, and take your post seriously by asking a substantive question, you act like a smart-ass and refuse to answer.

To let you know, Trotsky dated Thermidor (what I think you're referring to) to 1924, not 1925, and that is obliquely related to the topic I initially broached, which was counter-revolution, not Thermidor.

Now do you have anything constructive to add? If not, nobody is forcing you to read the thread.

Five Year Plan

175

Thermidor, in Trotskyist parlance, marks the start of degeneration. Have you not been paying attention to anything that has been said in this thread?

Five Year Plan

Yes, that's what I said. That's what I meant by throwing in the towel - "anti revisionist" Marxist-Leninists, for example, might claim that Stalin's death marked the degeneration of the Soviet Union. I'm going to ask you a serious question: Why do you always find it necessary to start semantic arguments and deliberately twist meaning in order to suit your argumentative abilities? Secretly I think you don't know much - you have to shape and mold the posts of others so that they can fit your intellectual constrains.

-

I wonder if it really is possible to recognize one single event or date in such a manner. Maybe it is, but there are numerous problems with such an approach. For instance, one could just as possibly argue that counter-revolution was from the very start inseparable from revolution, in the form of the civil war and distortions it provoked (one which are to this day defended not only as "necessary" for the preservation of Bolshevik rule, but actually as steps forward towards socialism).

LinksRadikal

There can be a date that has symbolic value, which is roughly around the time of the Krodstat rebellion for Left communists. Nobody argues that such degeneration comes out of the blue, everyone thinks that there are factors and reasons that were present that led to it - but rather than being theoretical it's a political gesture - take Trotskyists for example who became an oppositional entity after 1924.

To argue that the actions taken during the civil war were unnecessary is ridiculous. The Bolsheviks were not cruel for the fuck of it.

-

Given that the purges themselves were not at all confined to the state apparatus, how can you claim that they had no "fundamental social implications"? You're just asserting what you need to prove. And the bureaucracy existed before the purges? You don't say!

MEGAMANTROTSKY

Again, what I am asking you is prescisely this - What organs of worker's power were destroyed during the Stalinist purges? What precisely changed besides the cementing of rule of Stalin's political faction? My point is that the proletarian dictatorship had long been dead by the time your alleged "counter revolution" had succeeded. No need to get haughty MEGAMAN, yet again you have no idea of what the fuck you're talking about. There were no fundamental social implications of the Stalinist purges - instead it was inter-bureaucratic masturbation. Such violence did not signify a fundamental change in the nature of the Soviet state (a counter-revolution) because the alleged "ties to the proletarian dictatorship" had at

176

that time long been dead.

Your claim is no more convincing than the last time. The Soviet state had thrown off its claims to the heritage of October and the revolution during the 1930s. Unless you're saying that a worker's state can still be a worker's state with no working class base or input, your claim still makes no sense. It wasn't a worker's state by that point, so how could the revolution be defended if its gains were destroyed?

MEGAMANTROTSKY

While the proletarian dictatorship could not have been defended because it did not exist - in the course of the Soviet state defending the proletarian dictatorship during the civil war soon after the state and the dictatorship became synonymous (well, they were already synonymous). Defending the revolution then translated into defending the state - so in the process of Stalin defending the Soviet state (For example, against Tsarist counter revolution, against foreign imperialism) he was in effect destroying it. That was my point. Again, you have no idea of what you're talking about. You're like a depraved creature shouting in your baseless confidence that somehow, what I am saying is contradictory or ridiculous. It may have not been a worker's state, but it was a state - and in the minds of those in power defending the state meant defending the gains of the October revolution - yes it's contradictory because the whole affair was a contradiction itself. Sacrificing the gains of the October revolution were necessary for the preservation of the state within their according conditions. You make it as if I am the chief architecture of this scenario, like I was live back then and it was my doing. No, I'm just explaining to you HOW it worked, - and yes it was contradictory, the rule of the Soviet state was contradictory.

-

And while you didn't claim Stalin as being solely responsible - that is the underling implications of many Trotskyists. Sure they'll sell it off with some obscure pretentious nonsense about "individuals and history" but ultimately they will blame Stalin individually.

-

I'm just not sure how arrive at the conclusion that Trotskyists "threw in the towel" with the onset of degeneration when I explained very clearly that Trotskyists continued to work on trying to reform the Soviet bureaucracy from within for almost a decade after Thermidor began.

Five Year Plan

You yourself stated they were an oppositional group within the Soviet Comintern. While they might have claimed to try and reform the Soviet bureaucracy, they weren't at all doing this. Doing this actively within the Soviet Union would have meant their persecution and imprisonment. So they were effectively an opposition

177

group who opposed the character of the Soviet state following Trotsky's exile. Whether they think it could have been reformed is irrelevant. I'm sure some anti- revisionists might believe that putting anti-revisionists in power in the Soviet Union would have surely stopped Bhreznev and Gorbachev from coming to be, but that doesn't mean anything. They threw in the towel following Stalin's death. That's what Tim was trying to say.

You don't deny that Trotskyists hold 1924 as the onset of Soviet degeneration, okay? So here is Tim's post: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...68&postcount=9

He clearly posits the question of when the revolution degenerated. So the argument then becomes whether it was 1925, or 1924. He has respectfully acknowledged that he made an error, one year off. That doesn't change the point at hand, however.

You could try to say that Tim did not post the dates in which the counter-revolution occurred, which was the point of your topic, but that didn't seem to bother you as your first reply to him was this http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...8&postcount=16. Your problem was that Tim wrongfully stated that Trotskyists believe the revolution degenerated in 1925, when it was actually in 1924. So the premise of your argument wasn't about counter-revolution vs. degeneration, but an irrelevant mistake made by Tim.

-

Oh, so historians have just lied about the left oppositionists, many of whom followed Trotsky's political line, being sent to labor campus and being executed in the late 1920s and 1930s? You can make the argument that left oppositionists failed horribly at accomplishing their goals (and in fact, I would agree with that assessment), but to assert that they "threw in the towel" in 1924 (which is what YOU said, not Tim) is complete and utter bullshit you have to paper over by distorting history and trying to divert the conversation.

Five Year Plan

Well that's my point, the fact that they were sent to labor camps means they were effectively opposed to the character of the Soviet state. It's not as though they actively cooperated with the Soviet state and so on and merely disagreed with policies. Also the Left opposition outside of the Soviet Union is distinguishable from some elements within the Soviet Union which included a large variety of people, among them were Trotskyists. Unless you admit that the Trotskyist conspiracy outlined by the NKVD was actually real. But again, that's besides the point. Unsurprisingly. Are you aware that there were others who were persecuted,

178

who believed the revolution was degenerated even before Trotskyists did?

So what, is the entirety of your reasoning that you're upset over the use of the word "throwing in the towel". Throwing in the towel as far as their recognition of the legitimacy of the Soviet state. Well this is undeniable. Whether they wanted to reform it or not is irrelivent, the fact is that they opposed those in power within the Soviet state and the course it was taking. That was the whole point to begin with. The high king of semantics has spoken, and the entirety of his argument is that "throwing in the towel" is an inappropriate idiom as far as the position of Trotsky and his followers following 1924. I don't know why, though. He has yet to explain. It's not like I'm trying to say that's when the Left opposition stopped trying completely. Just that they stopped trying to ignore that the revolution was beginning to degenerate. I don't see the problem. Want to explain, or are you going to create a new strawman?

When you are posting a chart intended to help clarify the position of various tendencies regarding counter-revolution in the Soviet Union, I don't think it's helpful to confuse counter-revolution with Thermidor, then on top of that, to get the date of Thermidor wrong. You want to defend this because you are still peeved I think your posts are laughable rubbish, and that's fine. I'm more than happy to continue pointing out how your posts are rubbish while you desperately try to start pointless little skirmishes across the forum.

Five Year Plan

Well that's fine, but that wasn't your problem, your problem was that Tim pointed out the wrong date. It would seem that your qualm with Tim's lack of emphasis on the dichotomy between degeneration and counter-revolution only came later in the thread, arguing with me. Tim didn't even talk of counter-revolution, he merely pointed out the date various tendencies hold it's degeneration as beginning on. If the point was the actual counter-revolution, that may have been a mistake on his part - but the dates he posted were the dates in which all groups became effectively opposed to the character of the Soviet state - with some believing it could have reformed, while others thinking the revolution was already destroyed. It doesn't matter.

Tim's point was that we all already know who thinks what. I think that the only thing you're pointing out, Five Year Plan, is your inability to engage in a coherent discussion. The only thing you're revealing is that you don't know what you're talking about.

-

Five Year Plan's powerful argument: No! That's bullshit! That's rubbish! It's utter

179

bullshit!

Well okay. You can keep yelling at your computer screen. You're still wrong, though.

-

Your claim is that the period of Thermidor (when the bureaucracy took a conservative direction in policy) was the counterrevolution itself.

MEGAMANTROTSKY

You're right. MEGAMAN wins. (my original post)

 

 

 

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...1&postcount=54

There is

a difference between degeneration and counter revolution. The latter can be an effect of the former.

 

You and Five Year Plan miss the point anyway, you're attacking quite a minor, insignificant mistake - I doubt Trotskyists would consider the revolution to have degenerated if Trotsky had consolidated power rather than have been exiled. It's quite common knowledge that around the date Tim claimed, Trotskyists threw in the towel. Also context is important, look at all of the other dates respective to the currents.

Rafiq

I'm searching hard to find something that validates your accusation, but I can't find anything. Can you help me, MEGAMAN?

-

1.) In defending the revolutionary state, Stalin destroyed the revolution. Only the state was left. 2.) Therefore, the state needed to be defended because it was revolutionary.

Need I say more?

MEGAMANTROTSKY

Wait what? When did I say the state ought to be defended? Are you now a sovereign yourself, the King of Straw-men?

So you admit that your accusation of me promoting the “Great Man” theory of history was unfounded, then you turn around accuse me of it again, because all Trotskyists assign a personal responsibility to Stalin. Saying Stalin had an individual effect is a far different matter from saying that he carried out the effect all by himself. You’re dealing with me, not all Trotskyists. Cut the blanket statements, already.

MEGAMANTROTSKY

Do you think it would have been a lot different as far as history goes (changes in class relations) had Trotsky been at helm?

-

I am against the formulation because it, in its substance and not just in its semantics, is misleading. In common currency, "throwing in the towel" means to give up. It's an expression used to refer to the practice in boxing where the manager of a prize fighter, thinking that his charge cannot win, will throw a white towel into the ring to stop the match. Throughout the 1920s and very early 1930s, Trotskyists saw the bureaucracy was on the ropes, but did not give up on it. They sought to treat the boxer in the corner between rounds and hope to restore him to better fighting shape so that the fight could continue to victory.

Five Year Plan

180

Well actually listen though - by the early 1920's a wide variety of Left currents had proclaimed the revolution to have degenerated or destroyed. Trotsky did not. So It's not like I'm trying to say that's when Trotsky and his followers (by the early 1920's there was a visible trend of factionalism within the Soviet state) stopped trying completely. Just that they stopped trying to ignore that the revolution was beginning to degenerate (even if they believed so for the wrong reasons). I don't see the problem. Want to explain, or are you going to create a new strawman?

And I think if anything your analogy is misleading. They were an opposition group. That's the point. It doesn't matter what they think they could have done (which they could not have, anyway, like what redeemable qualities even existed?), it's what they WERE doing. Now if there were self proclaimed followers of Trotsky within the apparatus of the Soviet state who were actively trying to reform it, if they were an actual component of the state itself your argument would have credence. But they weren't, there was absolutely no part of the Soviet state that they were a part of.

If we presume your analogy is fine, then I would respond by saying they weren't even in the ring to begin with. They were in the audience about five rows away, without a ticket, with broken medical equipment they thought they could treat the boxer with. They threw in the towel trying to think that their champion was healthy and ready to put up a fight long before.

-

Notice how Rafiq places priority on consciousness in the first statement regarding the Stalinist purge, while explicitly condemning it in the second in relation to the Left Opposition. Yes, he's not biased towards the Stalinist state by any extent, naturally. I think we should start a new thread called, "How Rafiq likes to argue with himself." Admission is free!

MEGAMANTROTSKY

Well they're both in different contexts. If someone was making the argument that Stalin was building socialism because of what he thought he was doing I would respond with the same thing - it doesn't matter what he thinks he's doing, it's what he's doing. The point is that the vertex of argument resided in different places.

In the latter, it's that the Left opposition was an opposition group who thought they were reforming the Soviet state.

The Stalinist apparatus was an entity that was destroying the revolution in the

181

process of trying to defend themselves. I don't see the inconsistency? Can you explain yourself, MEGAMAN? The Stalinist state was protecting the state. Do you disagree? They WERE doing this - the point was that they were destroying the revolution at the same time. And, at the same time, they conflated protecting the state with protecting the revolution. Now as far as the real effects go you're right, that doesn't matter. But that's not the point.

I don't think you understand how logic really works, MEGAMAN.

-

The problem

Five Year Plan

I think the real problem is that the idiom has different connotations than you think it does. You think it means giving up as far as trying to "reform" the bureaucracy goes while I claim it means giving up as far as defending the notion that the revolution is not degenerating/is on a healthy road. It's a semantic argument created by the high king of semantics himself, Five Year Plan. You completely twisted what I was saying respective to the context of my post because you couldn't address it properly.

You skim through posts and in your inability to confront real arguments you attempt to point out things which you deem are erroneous. Small fun facts that mean nothing, like 1925 vs. 1924, or in this case, what throwing in the towel means.

-

The problem lies in how your method of analysis is inconsistent and as a result, you constantly catch yourself in contradictions. You accept as good coin how the Stalinists regarded themselves irrespective of their actions, and you dismiss the Left Opposition only for their actions. I don't think context can really absolve you of your tin ear towards historical precision.

MEGAMANTROTSKY

Well the difference is that the Stalinists WERE effectively protecting the state (just not the revolution) while the Left Opposition was really only trying to undermine its rule, opposing it (just not really reforming it in any meaningful sense)

Trotsky's followers: Opposition group, opposing state actively - claims that they are trying to reform it

Stalinist apparatus: Paranoid state actively protecting itself - claims it is defending the revolution because the association with the revolution and the state was

182

cemented during the October revolution (such a marriage was tacitly done away with following the civil war).

As far as what they claim they are doing, this has no relevance as far as their real actions go, correct. But my argument never posited otherwise. Just that in the minds of the Stalinist apparatus, they were defending the revolution. I know that in the minds of the Left Opposition there was hope for the Soviet state - but that doesn't mean anything as far as what they really were. The difference is that the Soviet state actually WAS protecting the state.

how was the Left opposition reforming the bureaucracy in any meaningful sense?

If you think that's inconsistent, you're alone.

-

Still waiting on this though http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...1&postcount=78

and this http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...6&postcount=80

-

You can't be this dense. By destroying the revolution, the Soviet state was no longer revolutionary, in any sense. All that was left was an exalted petty-bourgeois strata that went on to restore capitalism. So there is no logical basis for the Soviet state simultaneously defending and destroying it.

MEGAMANTROTSKY

No, it wasn't. What's your point? In the process of defending the revolutionary state, the revolutionary character of the state was lost - as it would have in such conditions. How is this so hard to understand?

-

This creates still another problem. If you had said, "Trotskyists threw in the towel in 1924 on defending the notion that the revolution is not degenerating (in a Thermidorean reaction)," you would at least have made it clear that Trotskyists were not giving up on the state in general, which is how your originally formulation made it seem by mentioning "throwing in the towel" in general. But apart from that, your revised version gets the history wrong. Trotsky and his oppositionists were struggling against bureaucratization even before 1924, and Trotsky (later, in 1935) identified 1924 as a period of Thermidorean reaction precisely because the opposition he had been leading prior to that point for greater democratization had been defeated. If you were engaged in this debate out of a desire to make substantive contributions based on your knowledge of the events under discussion, rather than just looking for ways to disagree with me, you wouldn't make these sloppy mistakes.

Five Year Plan

Revised version? If it was any other version what I said wouldn't have even made sense. So how did I revise it? That was the whole point of my usage of the term.

183

Anyway, are you claiming that Trotsky claimed the revolution had degenerated before 1924? Because a lot of Soviet figures, recognized the danger of bureaucracy before then, too. Is that the same as degeneration, though? I think not.

-

Trotskyists regard 1924 as the date signifying the revolutions degeneration. Trotsky could have said this in 1934, or in 1992. It doesn't mean anything. What are you even talking about? What exactly is your argument? Again, more confused semantics.

If Trotsky said in 1934 that the revolution degenerated in 1922, this would have answered my question. It doesn't matter WHEN he said it, but WHERE in history he puts the date as. Is English your first language? Have you ever argued anything that wasn't semantics based? You misconstrue meaning and then argue with nothing. Why?

-

You have never explained how a state can stay a "revolutionary state" at the time it is liquidating that very revolution. MEGAMANTROTSKY

When the revolutionary state liquidate the revolution, it ceased to be revolutionary. Contradictions exist. Capitalism destroys capitalism through its contradictions (class), etc.

-

The argument, in case you failed to comprehend it, is that 1924 did not functionally mark a change of strategy for Trotsky or his followers in the Soviet Union, either a change that can be described as "throwing in the towel" or otherwise, even with your "clarification" regarding what you meant by "throwing in the towel." 1924 only acquired significance long after the fact in Trotsky's analysis.

Five Year Plan

If Trotsky said in 1934 that the revolution degenerated in 1922, this would have answered my question. It doesn't matter WHEN he said it, but WHERE in history he puts the date as. Is English your first language? Have you ever argued anything that wasn't semantics based? You misconstrue meaning and then argue with nothing. Why?

For fuck's sake. How can Left Communists "throw the towel" in during the krodstat rebellion when the ones on this website weren't even alive? It's an idiom, it describes the date - the reference point in which they view they throw in the towel in. You're making a big deal over what is a semantic problem instead of addressing the actual argument. You, yet again don't know what you're talking

184

about.

-

The point you can't seem to get through your head is that there was no change in strategy by Trotsky or his followers in 1924 or 1925. So even if I accept your characterization of "throwing the towel in," nothing was thrown in those years. And no Trotskyist has ever claimed that there was a change in strategy during those years. What changed was an analysis of what those years represented in terms of bureaucratic degeneration. You're talking out of your ass and are now trying to change the topic to twenty other things in order to cover up for it.

By all means, claim the point is irrelevant or semantic. But concede it, because you were initially wrong, and you're just digging yourself deeper into a hole at this point.

Five Year Plan

Where the fuck are you getting the idea that change in strategy is of relevance here? Granted, I am unaware of whether there was a change in strategy or not in 1924. However 1924 is the date Trotskyists throw in the towel as far as a defense of the Soviet Unions alleged vitality goes (that it is still of vitality).

Tim asked: What year did the October revolution degenerate. Trotskyists put that date at 1924. So what are you arguing about? YOURE changing the fucking topic of discussion into the strategies of the left opposition which has nothing to do with anything here. You then accuse me of changing the subject. Are you trolling?

-

Anyone whose read the better half of this thread knows that this was never a discussion on a "change of STRATEGY". It's as though you've just read a fun fact and decided it would be sufficient ammunition. You clearly either did not know about it before (as you never mentioned it) or you have become desperate as far as this discussion goes in actually confronting my arguments. There is nothing I said to you that would make such a reply appropriate or relevant. You can keep touting that I am "changing the topic" but you're either deliberately being dishonest - or you know fuck all about the topic at hand in the first place.

Do you actually reply thinking you are exposing or discrediting me? Is it really in your mind that you're giving me a go with your confused and trollish semantic arguments? You don't even know what you're talking about. There is not one argument you have made that was a direct reply to my post. Even now you're going to, like a broken record player repeat the same nonsense. You lose FYP. Your semantic arguments are insufficient in covering your intellectual dishonesty.

-

185

If you accept that the state ceased to be revolutionary, how does it follow that the Soviet state defended the revolution by destroying it?

MEGAMANTROTSKY

Please refer to where I said the Soviet state successfully defended the revolution rather than TRYING to defend the revolution as they believed the state and the revolution were one and the same (which they were wrong about).

More straw men, more nonsense from MEGAMEGAMAN. The day I leave because of MEGAMANs desire to tout his drivel more comfortably is the day we find out Trotsky wasn't a spineless hypocrite. Also why have you not replied to my earlier posts, which I had to link again? Or do you concede that you didn't know what you're talking about all along?

-

There Rafiq clearly states that so-called Trotskyists "threw in the towel" in 1925. Note that he didn't say that Trotskyists later, in 1935, threw in the towel in 1925 by subsequently revising their analysis of that year. And why would he have said that? It's an idea that doesn't even make any sense.

Five Year Plan

It's a well known fact that Trotskyists did not exist in 1925. I shouldn't have had to make it fucking clear that what I meant was:

1) There were no "Trotskyists" as a clearly defined tendency in 1925 to do any towel throwing. There were people, some moreso than others, who followed Trotsky's political line in criticizing Stalin's leadership and the bureaucracy in general.

Five Year Plan

To re-quote myself, as you conveniently attempt to bury such a vital argument into a void in order to make it seem like I didn't already address this claim

What I mean is that Trotskyists today see that date as the red line, I wanted to say throw (not threw) in the towel but then you'd say that doesn't make sense. Are you capable of arguing without isolating stupid semantic mistakes that have fuck all to do with anything?

It is possible to recognize a date in which degeneration starts leading up to counter revolution. In the eyes of most of us, Trotskyists see that date as your

"thermidor"

2) Even if we pretend that "Trotskyists" immediately in 1924 (not 1925, as Tim's original post wrongly claimed) started talking about Thermidorean reaction, that is different than "throwing in the towel" in the unqualified way that Rafiq used the term in his statement. Trotsky continued to believe that peaceful reform of the Stalinist bureaucracy was possible until 1933, well past the onset of Thermidor.

Five Year Plan

More evidence of Five Year Plan successfully "correcting me" (or correcting his

186

straw man)

Well actually listen though - by the early 1920's a wide variety of Left currents had proclaimed the revolution to have degenerated or destroyed. Trotsky did not. So It's not like I'm trying to say that's when Trotsky and his followers (by the early 1920's there was a visible trend of factionalism within the Soviet state) stopped trying completely. Just that they stopped trying to ignore that the revolution was beginning to degenerate (even if they believed so for the wrong reasons). I don't see the problem. Want to explain, or are you going to create a new strawman?

And I think if anything your analogy is misleading. They were an opposition group. That's the point. It doesn't matter what they think they could have done (which they could not have, anyway, like what redeemable qualities even existed?), it's what they WERE doing. Now if there were self proclaimed followers of Trotsky within the apparatus of the Soviet state who were actively trying to reform it, if they were an actual component of the state itself your argument would have credence. But they weren't, there was absolutely no part of the Soviet state that they were a part of.

3) There was no change in strategy or approach in 1924 or 1925 among those upholding Trotsky's line. It therefore makes no sense to talk about either of those years as a period when Trotskyists "threw in the towel" or made any other alteration to their aspirations. The change in analysis, as I have repeatedly shown, occurred in 1933, with the revision of the idea of Thermidor coming in 1935. You can't retroactively "throw in the towel" years after an event supposedly already took place.

Five Year Plan

Trotskyists regard 1924 as the date signifying the revolutions degeneration. Trotsky could have said this in 1934, or in 1992. It doesn't mean anything. What are you even talking about? What exactly is your argument? Again, more confused semantics.

If Trotsky said in 1934 that the revolution degenerated in 1922, this would have answered my question. It doesn't matter WHEN he said it, but WHERE in history he puts the date as. Is English your first language? Have you ever argued anything that wasn't semantics based? You misconstrue meaning and then argue with nothing. Why?

Me, in regards to FYP's evasion of my question as to whether Trotsky set the date of the revolution's degeneration before 1924

(Funny that you consistently have claimed thermidor was the beggining of the Soviet Union's degeneration, and then claim afterwards that Trotsky saw that date as earlier)

Anyone whose read the better half of this thread knows that this was never a discussion on a "change of STRATEGY". It's as though you've just read a fun fact

187

and decided it would be sufficient ammunition. You clearly either did not know about it before (as you never mentioned it) or you have become desperate as far as this discussion goes in actually confronting my arguments. There is nothing I said to you that would make such a reply appropriate or relevant. You can keep touting that I am "changing the topic" but you're either deliberately being dishonest - or you know fuck all about the topic at hand in the first place.

So there are the three titans of Five Year Plan's arguments: Three house's of cards waiting for the slightest poke of truth to knock them all down.

When called on all these errors, the best Rafiq can do is moan about how I am latching onto meaningless semantics. Five Year Plan

While in reality what Rafiq is doing is demonstrating how you are arguing a fundamentally semantics based argument. I have demonstrated this countless times. You are only capable of taking advantage of everyone's ignorance with regard to the last two or three pages - you make it as if we have not been over this. Any idiot who cares enough to look through the thread can see the circular reasoning FYP is adhering to.

-

If there is anything you could even attempt to correct it may be a 'poor choice of wording' (even then, this is highly debatable. This is not a poor choice of wording). There is nothing about my arguments which you have confronted or addressed, you have only misconstrued meaning. While most would find it reasonable that because of a poor choice of wording such a misinterpretation is expected, the problem is:

You know very well what I mean. I have explained myself countless times. You are changing the fundamental nature of this argument in order to suit your intellectual constrains. Your lack of knowledge forces you to reduce others to your level of ignorance.

Thermidor is the date Trotskyists regard the towel to be thrown in. After dismissing other events that could potentially signify the degeneration of the October revolution like krodstat, Trotskyists today throw in their towel at 1924. This has nothing to do with Trotsky, or even his followers in the 1920's or 30's. It's about the various strands of Trotskyism today and how they PERCEIVE the events. This is perfectly understandable if you understand the context in the first place. But you

188

DO, you are simply deliberately trying to change it. When presented with a timeline from the October revolution's inception to the collapse of the Soviet Union, Left Communists, Leninists and other Marxists all still see a bright future. As time goes on, Left Communists throw in their towel around the failure of the German revolution, or perhaps Krodstat, as time progresses Trotskyists finally cave in at 1924, with some Stalinists at 1953, and so on. This might APPEAR obscure but TIM was referring to what the various members of different tendencies ON THIS WEBSITE hold in regards to the matter.

Granted the underlying difference is that Trotskyists might regard the Soviet Union as not having experienced a counter-revolution that early, unlike Left Communists but this makes little difference. They were still an effectively oppositional group with absolutely no standing within the Soviet bureaucracy they were allegedly trying to reform. They are like the Sparts defending the North Korean deformed worker's state, they don't amount to shit.

Even if I divulge into your attempt to de-rail the discussion you claim that there was no change in outlook by Trotsky in 1924. But Stalin's camp effectively crushed the Left Opposition in 1924, at the 13th congress. So how could there be absolutely no change in the Left Opposition's behavior?

-

You are getting to confused by your own evasions and deflections that you have lost sight of the fact that Tim was talking about what Trotskyists today think. Your statement about towel-throwing regarded what "Trotskyists" were doing in 1925. Keep going, Rafiq. It's been a while since I've been this entertained on revleft.

Five Year Plan

To re-quote myself:

This has nothing to do with Trotsky, or even his followers in the 1920's or 30's. It's about the various strands of Trotskyism today and how they PERCEIVE the events. This is perfectly understandable if you understand the context in the first place. But you DO, you are simply deliberately trying to change it. When presented with a timeline from the October revolution's inception to the collapse of the Soviet Union, Left Communists, Leninists and other Marxists all still see a bright future. As time goes on, Left Communists throw in their towel around the failure of the German revolution, or perhaps Krodstat, as time progresses Trotskyists finally cave in at 1924, with some Stalinists at 1953, and so on. This might APPEAR obscure but TIM was referring to what the various members of different tendencies ON THIS WEBSITE hold in regards to the matter.

-

Actually, I'm just responding to the words you write. It's not my fault you have to keep revising those words several dozen times when it is shown that you have no idea what you're talking about. I mean, we can't wait indefinitely for

you to settle on a position to attack me with before the debate can begin.

189

Five Year Plan

Well you're doing a poor job, considering you accused me of talking of "trotskyists in 1925". What a stupid thing to say of you.

-

I said their strategy and aspirations didn't change. Please read more carefully.

Five Year Plan

Which brings us to square one: what the fuck is your point? Who the fuck was talking about strategy and aspirations? We're talking about Trotskyists today. You made it seem as though Trotsky only realized the revolution was going down a dark path in the 1930's when any idiot (from the perspective of the Left Opposition) can recognize this would have been apparent at their utter defeat during the 13th congress (which was 1924). Which brings us back to square one.

-

The point is that Trotskyists today don't pinpoint 1925 as the onset of degeneration. They never have. Tim conceded that point, but it provoked you to jump in to try to find something to defend about it because of your unhealthy obsession with finding ways to argue with me.

A second point coming out of all this back and forth is that the dating of Thermidor to 1924 did not alter Trotsky's or subsequent Trotskyists estimation of what the proper strategy and aspirations should have been in 1924, which is another reason your "throw in the towel" comment is way off base. It was a date arrived at in the process of a much larger re-analysis of post-October history, the payoff of which was the notion that the bureaucracy needed to be overthrown through force after 1933.

Five Year Plan

Circular reasoning. Circular reasoning. Circular reasoning.

I didn't say (or did I?)

If Trotsky said in 1934 that the revolution degenerated in 1922, this would have answered my question. It doesn't matter WHEN he said it, but WHERE in history he puts the date as. Is English your first language? Have you ever argued anything that wasn't semantics based? You misconstrue meaning and then argue with nothing. Why?

For fuck's sake. How can Left Communists "throw the towel" in during the krodstat rebellion when the ones on this website weren't even alive? It's an idiom, it describes the date - the reference point in which they view they throw in the towel in. You're making a big deal over what is a semantic problem instead of addressing the actual argument. You, yet again don't know what you're talking about.

Where the fuck are you getting the idea that change in strategy is of relevance here? Granted, I am unaware of whether there was a change in strategy or not in 1924. However 1924 is the date Trotskyists throw in the towel as far as a defense of the Soviet Unions alleged vitality goes (that it is still of vitality).

190

Tim asked: What year did the October revolution degenerate. Trotskyists put that date at 1924. So what are you arguing about? YOURE changing the fucking topic of discussion into the strategies of the left opposition which has nothing to do with anything here. You then accuse me of changing the subject. Are you trolling?

Anyone whose read the better half of this thread knows that this was never a discussion on a "change of STRATEGY". It's as though you've just read a fun fact and decided it would be sufficient ammunition. You clearly either did not know about it before (as you never mentioned it) or you have become desperate as far as this discussion goes in actually confronting my arguments. There is nothing I said to you that would make such a reply appropriate or relevant. You can keep touting that I am "changing the topic" but you're either deliberately being dishonest - or you know fuck all about the topic at hand in the first place.

Do you actually reply thinking you are exposing or discrediting me? Is it really in your mind that you're giving me a go with your confused and trollish semantic arguments? You don't even know what you're talking about. There is not one argument you have made that was a direct reply to my post. Even now you're going to, like a broken record player repeat the same nonsense. You lose FYP. Your semantic arguments are insufficient in covering your intellectual dishonesty.

If there is anything you could even attempt to correct it may be a 'poor choice of wording' (even then, this is highly debatable. This is not a poor choice of wording). There is nothing about my arguments which you have confronted or addressed, you have only misconstrued meaning. While most would find it reasonable that because of a poor choice of wording such a misinterpretation is expected, the problem is:

You know very well what I mean. I have explained myself countless times. You are changing the fundamental nature of this argument in order to suit your intellectual constrains. Your lack of knowledge forces you to reduce others to your level of ignorance.

Thermidor is the date Trotskyists regard the towel to be thrown in. After dismissing other events that could potentially signify the degeneration of the October revolution like krodstat, Trotskyists today throw in their towel at 1924. This has nothing to do with Trotsky, or even his followers in the 1920's or 30's. It's about the various strands of Trotskyism today and how they PERCEIVE the events. This is perfectly understandable if you understand the context in the first place. But you DO, you are simply deliberately trying to change it. When presented with a timeline from the October revolution's inception to the collapse of the Soviet Union, Left Communists, Leninists and other Marxists all still see a bright future. As time goes on, Left Communists throw in their towel around the failure of the German revolution, or perhaps Krodstat, as time progresses Trotskyists finally cave in at 1924, with some Stalinists at 1953, and so on. This might APPEAR obscure but TIM was referring to what the various members of different

191

tendencies ON THIS WEBSITE hold in regards to the matter.

Granted the underlying difference is that Trotskyists might regard the Soviet Union as not having experienced a counter-revolution that early, unlike Left Communists but this makes little difference. They were still an effectively oppositional group with absolutely no standing within the Soviet bureaucracy they were allegedly trying to reform. They are like the Sparts defending the North Korean deformed worker's state, they don't amount to shit.

Even if I divulge into your attempt to de-rail the discussion you claim that there was no change in outlook by Trotsky in 1924. But Stalin's camp effectively crushed the Left Opposition in 1924, at the 13th congress. So how could there be absolutely no change in the Left

Opposition's behavior?

Which brings us to square one: what the fuck is your point? Who the fuck was talking about strategy and aspirations? We're talking about Trotskyists today. You made it seem as though Trotsky only realized the revolution was going down a dark path in the 1930's when any idiot (from the perspective of the Left Opposition) can recognize this would have been apparent at their utter defeat during the 13th congress (which was 1924). Which brings us back to square one.

-

Trotsky and Trotskyists did not and have not ever claimed that there was a change of strategy in opposition to the Stalinist bureaucracy in 1924 or 1925. Nor did they or have they ever claimed that one was appropriate.

Five Year Plan

Anyone whose read the better half of this thread knows that this was never a discussion on a "change of STRATEGY". It's as though you've just read a fun fact and decided it would be sufficient ammunition. You clearly either did not know about it before (as you never mentioned it) or you have become desperate as far as this discussion goes in actually confronting my arguments. There is nothing I said to you that would make such a reply appropriate or relevant. You can keep touting that I am "changing the topic" but you're either deliberately being dishonest - or you know fuck all about the topic at hand in the first place.

Where are you getting the idea that I ever mentioned strategy? I said trotskyists TODAY.

Show me a single post of mine that is contradictory. Show me a single post where I have revised anything.

-

192

But even this passage isn’t enough to show up his theoretical bankruptcy. It may never be enough. Why? Because Rafiq doesn’t have a real position. Oh, in theory, he does. He may reveal it once he grows up. But as we have seen so often, he stakes out one position just to contradict himself in the next. How can one argue against such a person without losing their sanity? He will take four different positions if it enables him to try and disagree with somebody he doesn’t like. But fear not. Those who are opposing Rafiq are doing the thread, and the forum, a great service. Hell, it’s even helping Rafiq: By destroying him in these debates, we are saving him.

MEGAMANTROTSKY

If you think for a second that, that confused pile of shit of a post amounts to anything other than a pile of shit, I truly feel sorry for you. If you actually think you are destroying me by presuming the most utterly baseless nonsense (that for example I CONCUR with trotsky about 1924 being the onset of the degeneration - MY OWN position has always been different - but what we are arguing about is the Trotskyist position, and NOTHING MORE) then I truly feel sorry for you.

For example

This would mean that he conflates the issue of Soviet counterrevolution and degeneration, which is what the first debate centered on between FYP and Tim. But this is bizarre, considering that in #54, Rafiq clearly acknowledged such a distinction:

MEGAMANTROTSKY

But you still don't fucking understand. The time that Trotskyists state the counter- revolution had occurred, which is around the time of the Great Purges was not the counter-revolution. The revolution had been dead long before AND THAT WAS MY POINT. SO what exactly am I conflating, MEGAMAGEMGEMAN?

The fool still thinks that I am conflating the Trotskyist thermidor with the Trostkyist counter-revolution. Even after ignoring this: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...1&postcount=78

When he is utterly and completely destroyed, why does he continue to spout the same drivel which led him to shut his fucking mouth in the first place? It's like how Five Year Plan is sometimes unable to address a point, and brings up that very same point in ANOTHER thread only to make fun - while in effect not actually addressing it (See "Bourgeois Socialism").

Thus Rafiq claims the psychological motives of the Stalinists as proof of his schema. Quite a Sophoclean tragedy; he even cites Oedipus to prove his point! We have already seen how selectively he employs this method in accordance with “context” (see #83). But even a glimpse at “The Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right” knows that this argument has nothing in common with a materialist outlook. Rafiq’s conception of the state errs as Hegel’s did:

MEGAMANTROTSKY

And then he goes wild with his garbage and bring's in Marx's criticism of Hegel, as though I actually hold that

193

belief and action are identical. Why does he bring this up? Because he's a moron. What I did say, however:

Please refer to where I said the Soviet state successfully defended the revolution rather than TRYING to defend the revolution as they believed the state and the revolution were one and the same (which they were wrong about).

While the proletarian dictatorship could not have been defended because it did not exist - in the course of the Soviet state defending the proletarian dictatorship during the civil war soon after the state and the dictatorship became synonymous (well, they were already synonymous). Defending the revolution then translated into defending the state - so in the process of Stalin defending the Soviet state (For example, against Tsarist counter revolution, against foreign imperialism) he was in effect destroying it. That was my point. Again, you have no idea of what you're talking about. You're like a depraved creature shouting in your baseless confidence that somehow, what I am saying is contradictory or ridiculous. It may have not been a worker's state, but it was a state - and in the minds of those in power defending the state meant defending the gains of the October revolution - yes it's contradictory because the whole affair was a contradiction itself. Sacrificing the gains of the October revolution were necessary for the preservation of the state within their according conditions. You make it as if I am the chief architecture of this scenario, like I was live back then and it was my doing. No, I'm just explaining to you HOW it worked, - and yes it was contradictory, the rule of the Soviet state was contradictory.

Well they're both in different contexts. If someone was making the argument that Stalin was building socialism because of what he thought he was doing I would respond with the same thing - it doesn't matter what he thinks he's doing, it's what he's doing. The point is that the vertex of argument resided in different places.

In the latter, it's that the Left opposition was an opposition group who thought they were reforming the Soviet state.

The Stalinist apparatus was an entity that was

194

destroying the revolution in the process of trying to defend themselves. I don't see the inconsistency? Can you explain yourself, MEGAMAN? The Stalinist state was protecting the state. Do you disagree? They WERE doing this - the point was that they were destroying the revolution at the same time. And, at the same time, they conflated protecting the state with protecting the revolution. Now as far as the real effects go you're right, that doesn't matter. But that's not the point.

I don't think you understand how logic really works, MEGAMAN.

Well the difference is that the Stalinists WERE effectively protecting the state (just not the revolution) while the Left Opposition was really only trying to undermine its rule, opposing it (just not really reforming it in any meaningful sense)

Trotsky's followers: Opposition group, opposing state actively - claims that they are trying to reform it

Stalinist apparatus: Paranoid state actively protecting itself - claims it is defending the revolution because the association with the revolution and the state was cemented during the October revolution (such a marriage was tacitly done away with following the civil war).

As far as what they claim they are doing, this has no relevance as far as their real actions go, correct. But my argument never posited otherwise. Just that in the minds of the Stalinist apparatus, they were defending the revolution. I know that in the minds of the Left Opposition there was hope for the Soviet state - but that doesn't mean anything as far as what they really were. The difference is that the Soviet state actually WAS protecting the state.

195

how was the Left opposition reforming the bureaucracy in any meaningful sense?

If you think that's inconsistent, you're alone.

__________________

Rafiq

Why does he pick and choose his "quotes"? Why does he pretend like these arguments above were never made? I ask all of you viewing, what exactly am I saying can anyone find contradictory?9

-

Right, what you mentioned was Trotskyists throwing in the towel in 1925, subsequently revised to Trotskyists throwing in the towel in 1935,

Five Year Plan

Are you trolling, Five Year Plan? I said I wanted to say this is the year in which Trotskyists THROW IN THE TOWEL as in, PRESENT TENSE but you wouldn't made that into a semantic argument, which unsurprisingly you did. I said as far as TROTSKYISTS VIEW THE TIMELINE TODAY. Now what the FUCK did I revise? And where the fuck did I even mention the date 1935?

What I did say is that AROUND that date Trotskyists see that as the date they throw in the towel. IT DOESN'T MATTER IF ITS 1935 OR 2014 WHERE

THEY MAKE SUCH AN ASSERTION, THE FACT IS, AROUND 1924 IS WHERE TROTSKYISTS REGARD THE OCTOBER REVOLUTION TO HAVE DEGENERATED. It's where they throw in the fucking towel. There were no Trotskyists around in 1924 so what the fuck are you getting at? I REFER TO IT PRESENT TENSE. Honestly you've dragged on a purely SEMANTIC argument for how the fuck long? And you think this discredits me?

-

He's effectively BLOWING out of proportion a small grammatical error and then claiming, because of such an error that I held a position I NEVER DID, that I just "revised" my position. How do we know I did not revise my position? Because every fucking post I've made in the past two years would indicate that this was never my position, and every post afterwards would indicate the same thing. What is more likely, that it was a small grammerical error (in referring to it in past tense) or a COMPLETE REVISION of my understanding of Trotskyism which would

9 You know you're about to blow a gasket when you increase the font size to "read it from across the street" point.

Five Year Plan

196

reveal that I believe Trotskyists as they exist today existed in 1925. That would signify that something led me to believe this, but I don't know what the fuck could lead someone to believe this besides complete and total ignorance on the matter.

Furthermore the topic at hand was what Trotskyists believe TODAY, not what Trotsky and his followers believed several decades ago. So whose right, Five Year Plan or anyone who isn't deliberately ignoring the truth?

-

I pointed out to you that nobody gave up on anything in 1925. So you changed your position to Trotskyists throwing in the towel at the later date, setting a precedent for all Trotskyists ever since.

Five Year Plan

I didn't "change my position" I corrected myself gramerrically, not that it made a difference as far as the argument goes. You would be right if the discussion was about the actions of Trotsky in the early 1920's, but it wasn't. It was about where Trotskyists today place the date of the revolution's degeneration. With that context, it would be ridiculous to say that I "revised my position'. The reality is that while knowing full well what I meant, you took advantage of the slightest grammatical error (one letter) and claimed I believed Trotskyists existed in 1924, or that Trotsky changed his fundamental strategy or aspirations in 1924. It is well known that many Trotskyists regarded the Soviet Union as a deformed worker's state even well into the Bhreznev years. That is common knowledge. The state-capitalism theory is usually associated with Left Communists or Anarchists. Throwing in the towel doesn't mean, and never meant the time in which they regarded the Soviet Union as state-capitalist or incapable of being revived. So what's more likely, that I made an declarations about Trotsky's strategy or aspirations, or that I made a small grammatical error in order to avoid a nonsensical semantic argument which happened anyway? I'll leave that to others to decide.

The entire premise of your argument is this, Five Year Plan:

That I claim Trotskyists threw in the towel in 1925. This is wrong because Trotskyists did not exist in 1925. But even then, if I was trying to say Trotsky or his followers threw in the towel at that time, this would still be wrong because Trotsky only formulated his analysis a decade afterwards. har de har de har I win.

But that's a straw man argument. I never claimed Trotskyists existed in 1925 nor

197

that there was a change in strategy or aspiration of Trotsky and his followers following 1924. . None of that had anything to do with the argument in the first place, however. I never even spoke of Trotsky and his follower's actions. YOU did, which I replied by saying it doesn't matter what their aspirations are as they were an opposition party whose opposition was further solidified by the signification of their defeat and waning influence in the Soviet apparatus. What I would say in such a discussion is that 1924 definitely meant a difference in attitude on the state of things for the Left Opposition as they were overwhelmingly defeated during the 13th congress. That doesn't mean there is a fundamental change in aspirations, just that it signified they were losing. But again, that isn't this discussion.

Again what the argument WAS about was Trotskyists today and what date they throw the towel in as far as discussion, analysis on the matter goes. For most of them, it is thermidor.

Now it might seem like I am revising my arguments because I am explaining them in a very detailed and specific manner. This doesn't reflect an in-depth revision of my positions, is solely reflects the depth of your obfuscation and misconstruction of my argument to begin with. I shouldn't HAVE to delve this deep into detail, but I am forced to. This could be on your part deliberate trolling, ignorance, poverty of knowledge on the subject or a combination of all of these things - what it is not is an honest confrontation of my points.

So as I said, lots of different ass-covering formulations. All of them wrong.

Five Year Plan

Actually there has only been one consistent formulation. Any idiot can see that everything I have said is consistent. What is not consistent is your several bizarre obfuscations and ridiculous conclusions with even more ridiculous implications as far as your reading comprehension goes.

-

And as I keep saying, and you keep ignoring, Trotskyists don't date the revolution's degeneration to 1924. [...] as any literate person can see, your initial intervention was very much phrased to indicate a decisive change of behavior on the ground in 1924.

Five Year Plan

Why then was your initial reply to Tim in regards to where exactly they hold the degeneration of the October revolution to have started

To let you know, Trotsky dated Thermidor (what I think you're referring to) to 1924, not 1925

“Five Year Plan before he revised himself”

198

is there a case in which it is completely apparent that your initial reply to tim was "very much phrased" to indicate this is the true date in which the revolution degenerated?

This is the first time in which you claim Trotskyists don't regard 1924 as the date signifying the revolution's degeneration. Whose revising what?

Your post contained a little matching chart connecting tendencies to years when the Soviet Union degenerated. It claimed (anti-revisionist) "Marxist-Leninists" pinpointing "degeneration" to 1953. In fact, they pinpoint 1953 as a counter-revolution for state capitalism and social imperialism. For more info on this, see Ismail. You gave the date

1925 as marking degeneration of the October Revolution for Trotskyists. Also wrong. Trotskyists pinpoint Thermidor to 1924.

I point out these inaccuracies in your rather odd chart, then the best retort you can come up with is that I am being mean, then, when it becomes clear that I am no longer interested in litigating manners with you, that I am not responding to the substance of our post. In fact, your post, as I said, mashed together two separate things, degeneration and counter-revolution, and got a date wrong. If that's not a substantive criticism, what is?

Five Year Plan before his third revision”

Your problem was the conflation between counter-revolution and degeneration. Any idiot can see you said Thermidor marked degeneration, not counter- revolution.

If anyone is still unconvinced :

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...6&postcount=59

Thermidor, in Trotskyist parlance, marks the start of degeneration. Have you not been paying attention to anything that has been said in this thread?

Five Year Plan

So is thermidor not marked at 1924? What do you have to say for yourself? Five Year Plan's intellectual honesty:

Post 59: Thermidor, in Trotskyist parlance, marks the start of degeneration.

Post 125: Trotskyists don't date the revolution's degeneration to 1924

199

For someone who has constantly accused me of revising my arguments and positions, it sounds a lot like you're the only one doing this. Literally you and MEGAMAN's baseless accusations of contradictory arguments and revision - what the fuck do you have to say to THIS, you scoundrel?

So what do you have left? Moaning about the towel-throwing metaphor which clearly implies So It's not like I'm trying to say that's when Trotsky and his followers (by the early 1920's there was a visible trend of factionalism within the Soviet state) stopped trying completely. Just that they stopped trying to ignore that the revolution was beginning to degenerate

So you're right, throwing in the towel means quitting - but quitting what? It's obvious what I meant: Quit ignoring the revolution's degeneration, which was the TOPIC OF THE THREAD TO BEGIN WITH. Again, if the context was about the activities of Trotsky's followers - then yes you can accuse me of revising myself. But it wasn't, it was about where Trotskyists today place the degeneration of the October revolution. I have yet to revise anything.

Now if you're going to claim that Trotskyists don't hold 1924 as the date signifying the onset of degeneration, that's fine - but I'm going to argue and say no, most Trotskyists hold thermidor as the date signifying the beginning of degeneration. That would be an entirely new discussion and - you would have to admit that YOU ARE REVISING YOUR INITIAL POSITION. -

Like you're done Five Year Plan. Your whole argument, that I have been (revising my positions) while you are the one who has slowly and tactically done this IN RESPONSE TO MY POSITIONS as any idiot can see, has fallen on like a house of cards. You're done. What kind of scoundrel is this dishonest? You've CONSTNATLY revised your positoins - you've revised the whole premise of argument. From switching it over to a discussion on the strategies Trotsky and his followers to a discussion, accusing me of conflating counter-revolution with degeneration baselessly, about whether Trotskyists existed in 1924.

Oh and by the way, in case he claims that HE was trying to demonstrate that the degeneration started in 1924 rather than counter revolution, as if I thought Trotskyists hold counter-revolution in 1924 (when it's common knowledge that Trotskyists, a lot of them regarded the SU as a Deformed workers state right up to

200

its collapse) this is what he replied to (isn't it ironic that he replied with a straw man?)

What I mean is that Trotskyists today see that date as the red line, I wanted to say throw (not threw) in the towel but then you'd say that doesn't make sense. Are you capable of arguing without isolating stupid semantic mistakes that have fuck all to do with anything?

It is possible to recognize a date in which degeneration starts leading up to counter revolution. In the eyes of most of us, Trotskyists see that date as your "thermidor"

Rafiq

-

Assuming that is still your argument, there are several problems with it. If you’re claiming that Thermidor was the counterrevolution and that the purges were nothing more than a cubicle shuffle, you’re specifically ignoring the differences between political and social counterrevolution that characterize the Trotskyist position on Thermidor and the purges. For Soviet Russia the former entailed the latter.

MEGAMANTROTSKY

You are turning this into an argument over when the counter-revolution, degeneration actually had occurred rather than the positions of various Trotskyist currents. Seeing that I am not a Trotskyist - I obviously make this distinction. My position never held thermidor as significant as far as the revolution goes - I simply pointed out that this is the date in which Trotskyists mark the beginning of the revolution's degeneration. Given that in previous posts I had expressed that had I been alive, I would most likely have sided with the Stalin camp (or more preferably a military faction like Mikhail Frunze's, which is more ideologically equipped than Tukhachevsky), it would be ridiculous to claim that I regard thermidor as "counter-revolution". Furthermore it would be even more ridiculous to claim that I have been formulating a straw-man that claims Trotskyists regard this date as counter-revolution (rather than degeneration) given that I have tirelessly emphasized that this has never been what I held (seeing that some trotskyists regarded the SU as a deformed workers state up until its collapse).

As far as my positions are on the subject there is very little I concur with Trotskyists about. I regard the revolution's degeneration to have started immediately after the Russian civil war and the red terror, when the state was forced to open discussion on what is to be done about the state given their conditions (failed proletarian revolutions across western Europe). Furthermore as far as counter-revolution goes I regard this as a slow and gradual process rather than a single deliberate political gesture. I do not regard the great purges as a form of counter-revolution, rather the entirety of the course of the revolution's

201

degeneration was one grandiose counter-revolution. I think that most of the Soviet Union's politics was formed as a result of the necessity of retaining the power of the state in accordance with the different conditions faced by the state. This ultimately coincided with the destruction of the proletarian dictatorship and the gains of the revolution. We know this through the fundemental destruction of Communist ideology that was revealed during the civil war. Five Year Plan thinks it's a joke when I claim that Communist ideology during and following the October revolution was a kind of an apocalyptic mysticism but this reflects his sheer ignorance as far as the nature of Communism goes at that time. It was something entirely new that the world had never seen before, not even during Marx's time. There are several intellectuals who have discussed the issue. The Russian Civil War was incredibly brutal, horrifying and on paper a rather wretched affair. The Soldier's morale was kept alive solely by the flames of the October revolution (this is something Trotsky recognized very well). Mass feelings that a new world was imminent, that global revolution was imminent and that they were entering a new era in the history of human civilization undeniably characterized the nature of Communist ideology during the Russian civil war. And this is not something to be trivialized with weak and empty apologia or justification. It is something we must wholly embrace and identify with, not apologize for.

You did say that the Stalinists were wrong in lumping together the revolution and the state, but that doesn’t mitigate the fact that you were using their own narrative to make an argument; your disagreement with their conclusions affected nothing. Either way your formulation is wrong, and I feel further justified for consulting Marx’s words on the matter. MEGAMANTROTSKY

MEGAMAN you yet again have no idea of what you're talking about. My whole point was that rather some kind of sinister conspiracy for Stalin to gain supreme power, the revolution took the turn that it did as a result of the conditions faced by those in power. Trying to save the revolution in accordance with the conditions they faced meant the destruction of the revolution because the Soviet condition made a proletarian dictatorship (in a country where most of the proletarians who had made the revolution to begin with perished during the civil war!) impossible. Of course they played an active role in the revolution's destruction, all the while actively believing that they are saving it. That was my point. Both Marx and Hegel understood very well that history is not completely made intentionally.

Of course as a Trotskyist you cannot articulate this. Instead, you have to fit it utilizing your silly paradigm of Stalinism vs. Trotskyism unable to recognize the

202

sheer poverty of such a dichotomy. You have to accuse me of claiming that Stalin was the savior of the revolution, or whatever other nonsense you're trying to tout. If you were able to see beyond this, you would probably not be a Trotskyist in the first place.

But go on, precede to regurgitate the same garbage you have been in the past few pages completely and totally ignorant of what I am saying. No MEGAMAN you have absolutely no idea of what you're talking about, you don't know a damned thing about my posts. You simply can't understand this. How do I know this?

Claiming that I myself pinpoint counter-revolution to thermidor reveals an undeniable ignorance on your part as far as my posts go. You don't even know what the nature of this argument is. It certainly wasn't about when the revolution's degeneration actually occurred - it's about where Trotskyists today pinpoint this date, as well as the nature of the Stalinist solidification of power.

Make no mistake - by the way, things could have turned out much differently. A real bonapartist regime led by Tukhachevsky could have been possible. The NEP could have extended for much longer than it did resulting in the adoption of something similar to Chinese capitailsm or Yugoslavia much earlier than those things occurred. What we do know, however, is that the revolution would not have survived no matter who was at helm.

-

I stand by that comment, since I have repeatedly clarified that degeneration can be used in two ways [...]

I clarified this in an earlier post in the thread before you even began to participate, in fact, but since you weren't paying attention, you didn't notice it, and think I was "revising":

Five Year Plan

Holy fuck no. You don't get to claim that you simply meant that degeneration can mean "two things". If I ever made such an obviously contradictory claim the whole forum would be on my ass regardless of how reasonable the explanation sounds, and rightfully so. You clearly, and openly contradicted yourself. And please, point me to this "clarification" because it sure as hell isn't the quote you provided. Did you claim that Trotsky saw signs of degeneration before thermidor? You did. That however does not signify that Trotskyist organizations today do not regard thermidor as the marking point of the revolution's degeneration.

Making the distinction between 'political' degeneration and 'bureaucratic

203

degeneration' doesn't exist in Trotskyist parlance exclusively as most Soviet statesmen recognized bureaucratic degeneration as a problem, Stalin among them. Furthermore it is doubtful that it was your intentions was to convey this fact given that you never clearly distinguished 'bureaucratic degeneration' from degeneration. You simply said when Trotsky himself pinpointed a decisive turning point in bureaucratic degeneration. Now linguistically speaking for you to further use the word "degeneration" would signify that this is one and the same with "bureaucratic degeneration"

But let's assume everything I'm saying is bullshit, Five Year Plan. Let's assume none of that matters. You regard 1924 as the date signifying the revolution's political degeneration rather than bureaucratic degeneration, no? Then why did you claim that Trotskyists don't date the revolution's degeneration to 1924 rather than Trotskyists don't date the revolution's bureaucratic degeneration to 1924? Because you fucking contradicted yourself, that's why. If it was your intentions to, in that post (knowing full well, apparently that you had claimed earlier that thermidor began the degeneration) convey that 1924 doesn't mark the beginning of bureaucratic degeneration rather than political degeneration, you would have said so. You would have known that making such a clear distinction is necessary otherwise you would be contradicting yourself.

You said: Thermidor, in Trotskyist parlance, marks the start of degeneration. Have you not been paying attention to anything that has been said in this thread?

After saying: Trotskyists don't date the revolution's degeneration to 1924

You didn't make any distinction between bureaucratic and political degeneration here. You simply used the word degeneration. Either you were intentionally trying to attack me for the sake of disagreeing with me (something you accuse me of) or you contradicted yourself accidentally in the course if disagreeing with me.

And even if ALL Of that is bullshit, you want to know why it is clearly a contradiction?

Because I didn't say shit about thermidor as a date Trotskyists exclusively claim the bureaucratic degeneration began. I claimed that thermidor is the date

204

Trotskyists regard to the revolution to have degenerated. I didn't say shit about bureaucratic or political degeneration (just like you), just degeneration. So even if we assume your excuse isn't bullshit you either contradicted yourself, or you were making a straw-man to argue with, because I never denied Trotsky may have saw signs of bureaucratic degeneration before 1924. As a matter of fact, I pointed out that there were many prominent Soviet figures who saw the same thing, including Lenin, too.

There's no way out for you Five Year Plan. You CLEARLY dug yourself a hole and you won't get out of this one. Making the childish excuse that you MEANT to say (rather than actually saying) there are two types of degeneration isn't going to cut it.

I have subsequently pointed this out to you in a number of other posts, where I talked about Trotsky describing "departmental degeneration" and bureaucratism setting in before 1924.

Five Year Plan

Right, you did, I however did not. I claimed that Trotskyists regard the revolution to have degenerated in 1924 and nothing more. I did not make such a distinction, and I did not further use that distinction to claim that Trotskyists regard 1924 as the only year in which there are clear trends of bureaucratic degeneration. Bureaucratic degeneration was obvious to most Soviet politicians even before 1924. It is something even Stalin recognized in the 1920's. But do you want to know what it is, most of all? Not relevant.

For someone so knit picky, so eager to find contradictions and linguistic exploits where they simply do not exist - I can't imagine how you would defend yourself as all it could ever be is a case of ass covering. Just admit you're wrong.

-

Then why did you regard the purges as nothing but bureaucratic masturbation?

MEGAMANTROTSKY

Because again, by that time the revolution's destruction had already been apparent as early as - for example the failure of revolution in Western Europe.

And earlier, you admit that you favored the Stalinists, something we all knew but you refused to concede.

MEGAMANTROTSKY

No I have always claimed I would have sided with them had I lived during that time. Despite the inevitable mess - Trotsky was a cyrpto-menshevik who was untrue to the revolution at it's core. It's why Dzerzhinsky sided with Stalin too. Can it even be called a Stalin camp, however? Last I checked they later ruled as a

205

triumviate with Stalin as one of the three who LATER came out victorious in a power struggle. I have also claimed that had I lived during the time, I like Beethoven would have supported Napoleon before he revealed his true character. Even then, Stalin's camp was made up of many prominent figures who fell victim to the purges, too.

Surprise, surprise. You ascribe a position to me that I never held, and do not hold. What is your basis for this accusation? Put up or shut up.

MEGAMANTROTSKY

Well why else would you have a problem with me elaborating on the mentality that the Stalin camp genuinely believed they were trying to save the revolution? Do you disagree? If you do, would it be ridiculous to infer that you think they were of sinister intent trying to "gain power" (the language of liberals, yawn) or other such drivel?

-

I've always thought these sentiments were kind of odd and lead toward bias. It's made much more sense to me embrace history and work from that. The whole the fSU wasn't Communist argument is laughed at by most serious political people.

Василиса Прекра

For good reason too. Communism denotes a state that is controlled by self- proclaimed Communists. Rather than trying to adopt some kind of meta-political correctness, or evade our legacy we should look at all of the mistakes and factors that led to the failure of 20th century Communism.

Simply disassociating with our past and pretending like we have nothing to do with it, like an embarrassed distant cousin is infantile, weak-heartened and almost dishonest.10

-

Are you suggesting that the Soviet Union was communist?

Five Year Plan

I describe the Soviet Union as Communist just as I would describe the United States as a liberal democracy. It's political. Trying to evade usage of this term is pathetic. We already discussed this in another thread, however, in which you lost. This is the embryo of another semantics argument. Actually your post was bait for a semantics argument. Was the Soviet Union a classless society? Does the word philosophy necessarily denote a love of wisdom? No, but history has given it a

10 We agree on something ^-^ <333

Василиса Прекра

206

different meaning. Instead of squabbling over the various meanings of words, perhaps providing actual insight as to why they failed would be useful rather than (because der werent ocmmunist i has nothing to do witem). Communism (the movement, the ideology) in the 20th century failed in establishing the proletarian dictatorship. But it's our failure.

-

The question was, do you use the term to describe the Soviet Union as communist because you thought the society was, indeed, a communist society? It is obvious you describe it that way. My question relates to whether you describe it that way because you think it was that way. The rest of your post is, of course, not directly related to addressing the question. Please try to stay focused.

Five Year Plan

Yes of course, the Soviet Union fit the archetype for your "communist" utopia. A moneyless, happy society blah blah blah. We've been over this nonsense before, stop trying to change the topic of discussion into whether the usage of the word Communist had picked up a different meaning in certain contexts following the cold war (Namely, a state in control by self proclaimed Communists as well as the distinct ideological nature of these states). If we call a country Fascist, that does not denote an entirely new social epoch.

The complication arises when we recognize Communist countries were not capitalist in nature however not BEYOND capitalism in the sense that it is a possible future for capitalist states in Western Europe. Rather it was a circumstance distinguished by the abolishment of the vestiges of feudalism.

Do I think this is the Communism Marx talked about? No, of course not. It has - however taken a different meaning based on different contexts.

-

Wrong. You implied such a position numerous times, but you never openly said it in this thread until recently. You’re only coming out of the woodwork now because it’s too obvious what a fraud you are in regards to consistency and method in general.

Weak and inappropriate analogy. Ferdinand Ries’s story of Beethoven’s rejection of Napoleon notwithstanding, there is historical evidence suggesting that Beethoven identified with Napoleon’s rise to power even after the latter set himself up as emperor—both came from low status, etc. Yet there are also explicit Jacobin sentiments in some of his letters. I don’t know if this issue is settled or not, but it is not nearly as clear-cut as you’re portraying. Beethoven’s moods and opinions of things in general can be seen to change from one extreme to another. When you have to dig up a composer only to rebury him in brambles…just quit.

MEGAMANTROTSKY

In this thread, MEGAMAN. I have declared such a position numerous times before this thread was even created, it's not your fault for not knowing that but when I say

207

"I have said this before" don't try to refute me when you don't know shit.

I was under the impression that Beethoven despised Napoleon when Napoleon crowned himself empreror. As a matter of fact Symphony N. 3 was titled Bonaparte only to have the name changed to Eroica to commemorate the fallen heroes of the French revolution. And if your "evidence" holds up then why did Beethoven name one of his famous works "Wellington" to congratulate the Duke of Wellington over his victory over Napoleon?

And it's not a weak analogy. I don't have powers or control over history. All we have is the recognizable circumstances, the present conditions. So yes I would have sided with Stalin's camp. But again: Can it even be called a Stalin camp, however? Last I checked they later ruled as a triumviate with Stalin as one of the three who LATER came out victorious in a power struggle

I already responded to this in post #86. It wasn’t that I had a problem with you elaborating on the “mentality” of the Stalinists, but that you were doing it inconsistently. You did not do so with the Left Opposition who—correct me if I’m wrong—also had a “mentality” regarding their position on the revolution.

MEGAMANTROTSKY

And I responded with

Well the difference is that the Stalinists WERE effectively protecting the state (just not the revolution) while the Left Opposition was really only trying to undermine its rule, opposing it (just not really reforming it in any meaningful sense)

Trotsky's followers: Opposition group, opposing state actively - claims that they are trying to reform it

Stalinist apparatus: Paranoid state actively protecting itself - claims it is defending the revolution because the association with the revolution and the state was cemented during the October revolution (such a marriage was tacitly done away with following the civil war).

As far as what they claim they are doing, this has no relevance as far as their real actions go, correct. But my argument never posited otherwise. Just that in the minds of the Stalinist apparatus, they were defending the revolution. I know that in the minds of the Left Opposition there was hope for the Soviet state - but that doesn't mean anything as far as what they really were. The difference is that the Soviet state actually WAS protecting the state.

how was the Left opposition reforming the bureaucracy in any meaningful sense?

If you think that's inconsistent, you're alone.

Rafiq

You unsurprisingly failed to address this. My point, MEGAMAN is that the

208

mentality of Trotskyists doesn't matter if you're going to try and use that as evidence of what they were really doing. If someone tried to make the argument that because of the Stalin camp's mentality, they were actually saving the revolution I would descend upon them with equal ferocity.

You're all over the fucking place. It's funny that you mention post 86 as if I didn't completely destroy you, as if I ignored the argument and pretended it never existed (as you and FYP do all the time). No, I addressed it completely and wholly and you failed to confront me. So you bring it up now, as if it's buried deep into the abyss - like it's going to work again. Accusing me of being inconsistent for not giving a shit about what Trotskyists thought they were doing is stupid - and it's taken out of context. It doesn't mean shit as far as what they were really doing, but the argument wasn't about whether they were of sinister intent. I'm sure Trotskyists were trying to reform the bureaucracy, but they weren't doing this. Stalinists were trying to save the revolution but they weren't doing this. But its not like I just declared things: THESE WERE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ARGUMENTS! You're literally just taking bullshit out of context, MEGAMAN. More dishonest nonsense. Is this a Trotskyist trend?

-

Oh, and here's a tip: Stop saying "you're done" and that you quit if you're going to keep responding.

-

Wouldn't it just be easier to call it State Capitalism which is what it was? Just because many people are ignorant of the actual meaning of the term Communism does not mean we need call The Soviet Union something it wasn't.

The Modern Prometheus

No, it wouldn't be easier. Even if it was "state capitalist" which it was not this would be ridiculous and just as useful as political correctness is in combating racism. You can't pretend like the Soviet Union was exactly the same as the U.S. with the only difference being that the state was at helm. There were astronomical differences on an ideological, cultural and social level. Because those in power were self proclaimed Communists, this distinguishable phenomena was called Communism. The meaning of such a word will never change through activism or political correctness. If you want the masses to see Communism for what it is (a movement) then show, don't tell. History has a terrible memory and through the

209

course of class struggle all of that neoliberal drivel you learned in high school will drown.

-

Ok, thanks Rafiq. I just wanted to be clear whether you bought into the Stalinist notion that socialism is possible in a single country. You obviously do.

Five Year Plan

You're a troll. That's literally all you are. I have never claimed this. In fact all I did was loll over how such states possessed no long term viability in another thread (as a result of their conditions - for example being states with overwhelmingly peasant demographic majorities), and you know that. You therefore should admit that you're just fucking trolling right now.

What did I say in this very thread? That the revolution failed as a result of its inability to spread. Where the FUCK did I claim the revolution didn't fail?

Just because I'm not going to uselessly try to change the meaning of words which have historically have been given a different meaning in different contexts... I adhere to Socialism in one country? Five Year Plan thinks "state capitalism" or "bonapartism" is possible in a single country. Call it whatever the fuck you want, they're just words.

You're a fucking troll. "You obviously do" he casually spouts. "obviously", funny word for a proclamation that only comes from your ass. Obvious to who? A piece of shit troll like yourself?

-

Behold: Five Year Plan's evidence that Rafiq adheres to the notion of Socialism in one country

Communist had picked up a different meaning in certain contexts following the cold war (Namely, a state in control by self proclaimed Communists as well as the distinct ideological nature of these states). If we call a country Fascist, that does not denote an entirely new social epoch.

The complication arises when we recognize Communist countries were not capitalist in nature however not BEYOND capitalism in the sense that it is a possible future for capitalist states in Western Europe. Rather it was a circumstance distinguished by the abolishment of the vestiges of feudalism.

210

Do I think this is the Communism Marx talked about? No, of course not. It has - however taken a different meaning based on different contexts.

-

He loses every fucking argument in the thread, and now he just blatantly resorts to trolling. What has he addressed? NOTHING.

-

You're not understanding Rafiq's methodology. If a group of people governing in a state say that their state is communist, it's obviously communist because they say so. Communism, after all, "denotes a state that is controlled by self-proclaimed Communists."

Forget all those things you read in Marx about relations of production, exploitation, alienation, and power. It all boils down to what politicians and bureaucrats call themselves, since they are obviously such a reliable source of information.

Five Year Plan

But you do the same thing by referring to them as Stalinists. If you think there were no differences between liberal democracy and the states we are referring to other than the latter being "state capitalist" you're delusional. If we have a discussion on the nature of such countries than of course referring to them as the offspring of a successful proletarian dictatorship is ridiculous.

The point is that you cowardly distance yourself from the failed communist phenomena of the 20th century. instead of providing insight as to why they failed you simply assert that they weren't TRUE communist countries.

As of now this is the meaning Communism has taken, not among us irrelevant intellectuals but among the rest of the world in general. Mind you WE know otherwise but how can this translate on a political level? If we want to reclaim it, we must fight for the revival of a workers movement, not correct the alleged misuse of words culturally.

-

Your position is clear Rafiq. It's right there in my signature. What bureaucrats think about their state is what defines its class nature according to you,

Five Year Plan

No one is talking about the nature of social relations within the Soviet Union. Again as I said countless times before, we Marxists know better - but that does not make the political connotations which developed historically different.

What we are talking about is politics. The programmic implications of saying "they

211

weren't REALLY communist" implies that they had the choice to adopt "real Communism" in the first place - as if the entire disaster was just a mistake of policy. I fervently believe that at the October revolution's inceptions real efforts were made to establish a proletarian dictatorship, which then failed. Seeing that you've changed the topic of the discussion and you're a troll, this likely will not get through your thick skull. Your obfuscation as well as your deliberate attempts at formulating a straw man are your defense mechanism.

For anyone who is buying into Five Year Plan's drivel, let me make this very clear:

The Soviet Union as well as the offspring of its degeneration represented a distinct form of political rule as well as distinct social conditions before their inception: Namely overwhelmingly feudal and agrarian societies. These countries were administered and run very similarly and the effects were just as similar. As a result these countries had distinct cultures which formed as a result as well as a completely different ideological atmosphere. As a result of the cold war, as well as the result of these various states being run by Communists, these countries were referred to as Communist states. Western categorization of these countries as Communists did not form as a result of any illusions about these societies being "classless" or whatever - just that they were distinct societies whose distinction was made clear by referring to them as Communist. As a result of the cold war the word Communism - rather than referring to a movement of worker's parties became associated with these states and their distinct style of rule.

Therefore, today Communism (to the world) denotes a state run by self proclaimed Communists - rather than any illusions about it being the "TRUE" communism modern petty bourgeois socialists like to so adamently cling to. You can see how Five Year Plan, in order to guise his blatant defeat attempts to take such a phrase out of context and make it as if I claim the "class relations of society are determined by what Bureaucrats like to call them". He ignores my comparison to the category of state ideology - such as Liberal Democracy. We refer to countries like the United States as democracies, Marx and Engels had referred to them as democratic republics. Because the ideological rhetoric of those in power entailed what precisely this was. Are they "true" democracies as described by Aristotle? No. But they have taken a different meaning. Words can mean different thing in different contexts. This is something Five Year Plan doesn't understand. Yet he continues to like a desperate and hungry creature look for excuses to ridicule me.

212

The point is that it is pathetic and a waste of time trying to convince others that first of all: We have a Utopia in store for them, and second of all, that these societies weren't the "REAL" utopia. The point is that over the course of class struggle and the revival of a worker's movement such a word will again change it's meaning. History has a terrible memory. Class struggle isn't going to kick off by trying to convince people of what "real" communism is. Rather, it is important that we attempt to explain why Communism failed - not why it has nothing to do with us in the first place. Attempting to distance yourself from our legacy is cowardly and weak - yes we failed in our attempt to overthrow capitalism - but it is OUR failure. The question is not whether WE failed, but WHY.

Are you going to answer my question about North Korea? Do you think it is a communist society?

Five Year Plan

By the standards of 20th century Communism no, North Korea is ideologically distinct. Today there are no countries (not even Cuba) which are Communist by the

213

standards of cold war politics. The state has made this very clear - references of Communism have been removed from the constitution and ideological obfuscation - mutation from the mutant itself has occurred in correlation with the fall of the Soviet Union and it's allies. Perhaps today North Korea is an example of what other Stalinist countries may have looked like had they marched on into the 21st century (reactionary states to the world hegemonic states) but nothing more.

The reality is that socialism cannot exist in a single country.

Five Year Plan

A proletarian dictatorship cannot survive in a single country for very long. None the less the transition into an entirely new social epoch. Any idiot recognizes this, it is irrelevant (Hey Five Year Plan, if you're so honest then why do you pick and choose what you put in your signature? Why don't you put that in your signature? Because you're intellectually dishonest. Anyone who has been paying attention to

this very thread can see that). No one is arguing that socialism (in the sense of a new social epoch) can exist in a single country.

I implore you to dig through any of my posts that would suggest otherwise. Even if you can do this, you will likely take words and phrases out of context - misconstrue the meaning of WORDS when you know very well it is a misconstruction!

You're not going to cover your ass by starting a new discussion, Five Year Plan. Let's get back on track - reply to my earlier post.

-

Oh, but I'm sure that's "clear" enough for Straw Man Plan, clear enough to yet again tout the same drivel that I claim "a countries social relationships to production is defined by what those in power say it is". Fucking troll.

-

Oh, so now you're changing your answer and saying that the Soviet Union wasn't a communist society?

214

Five Year Plan

I NEVER defined Communism as a social epoch to be achieved. I have always, like Marx defined it as as a movement. Now you want to change the fucking discussion and have a re-run of an argument you lost in a previous thread: about what exactly Communism is. I NEVER adhered to the notion that a "communist society", a post-capitalist society is describable and understandable as it has never existed. You accuse me of attempting to change the discussion by talking about the goals of the October revolution - NOTHING CAN BE MORE RELEVANT. Communists seized control of the state and attempted to establish a proletarian dictatorship - AND THEY FAILED. All Communist states were the offspring of this failure.

The POINT is that I hold such a categorization of Communism as a "moneyless, happy society" or whatever the fuck you spoke of it as in an earlier thread. I said such a definition is not only not useful, it is distinctively Utopian. All visions of a future society DERIVE from the worker's movement, not from intellectuals like you. AND THE WORKER'S MOVEMENT does not exist, and the PREVIOUS worker's movements did not exist in the current form capitalism has taken. You're an Idealist: Words, on a political level can be changed as a result of social developments and changes in history.

Was the Soviet Union a "communist society"? In the sense of the notion of Communism as the 'next step' no it was not. In the sense of a new social epoch it was not. In context, if someone was to refer to the Soviet Union as a communist society I would NEVER use the argument and say "well it wasn't REALLY communist". If you remember the argument was about "THE ARGUMENT THAT THE fSU WASN'T REALLY COMMUNIST". So who the fuck is changing the discussion again?Your attempts to make it as if talk of what others think is fucking ridiculous as an ARGUMENT denotes a OTHER perspectives. -

Communist in the sense of the political connotations associated with the word as it developed in the cold war - which is still in use today.

215

-

Straw Man Plan accuses me of evading arguments: I want everyone to look at this page alone and see whose evading what.

This answers the question about what people in general connote communism to be, or associate it with. It doesn't seem to be occurring to you that I am asking you about whether you thought the Soviet Union was ever a communist society, independent of what "people" in general might think.

Five Year Plan

Except If you remember the argument was about "THE ARGUMENT THAT THE fSU WASN'T REALLY COMMUNIST". So who the fuck is changing the discussion again? Your attempts to make it as if talk of what others think is fucking ridiculous as an ARGUMENT denotes a OTHER perspectives.

Everyone knows what I think. They were states destroying the vestiges of feudalism and paving the way for capitalist development. They had no potential for long term viability and the state was unable to reproduce the conditions of its existence - it is therefore NOT a distinct social epoch but a transition phrase (to capitalism from feudalism).

-

yet again ANOTHER fucking SEMANTICS based argument. I called it VERY early in this thread - he's started another SEMANTICS argument with the word "Communism" as the new subject.

216

-

Asking whether you think a state or society was communist is not a semantic issue. It's an issue that cuts to the very essence of what people on this forum claim to be fighting for.

Are you going to answer the question now?

Yes, the argument was about whether the Soviet Union was ever really communist. I asked you whether you thought it was ever "really" a Communist society, and so far, you've not answered the question. All you've done is say that it was "not" communist in one or two senses, and repeated incessantly that it was according to other people's understanding of what communism is, which just raises the question of whether YOU think it was ever communist.

Five Year Plan

Everyone knows what I think. They were states destroying the vestiges of feudalism and paving the way for capitalist development. They had no potential for long term viability and the state was unable to reproduce the conditions of its existence - it is therefore NOT a distinct social epoch but a transition phrase (to capitalism from feudalism).

You can call THAT whatever the fuck you want, but THAT is what I describe such countries as. What does it come down to? Semantics. You're the most intellectually dishonest person I've ever come across on this forum. I've been here for three years or so and I've never come across someone so adamant, so willing to sacrifice their own dignity and honesty in order to cover their ass.

-

Five Year Plan thinks Communism only has one meaning in every context.

He's wrong, and he's obfuscating everything.

If I say they are Communist as a result of the new meaning Communism has taken

217

- he will then accuse me of thinking they are actually communist societies as described by Marxists, as believed to exist by people on this forum. It's all semantics, all nonsense, all confusion and garbage.

If I say they aren't communist societies IN THE SENSE OF HOW HE'S TALKING ABOUT COMMUNISM he will accuse me of contradicting myself - even though I made it clear that there is more than one fucking meaning of the word. Interestingly enough for someone to dishonestly clam that there's more than one word for the word "degeneration" this is completely fucking ridiculous.

Look through this thread everyone. Does anyone really believe this is all about him asking a "simple" question which I am evading?

-

It's not a simple fucking question. Because I OPPOSE all of the presumptions he has about the fucking word. If we presume Five Year Plan's intellectual foundations, his intellectual presumptions are true OF COURSE IT'S SIMPLE. He's so adamant in thinking his presumptions are uncontested, as if it's as real as his fedora.

-

That doesn't tell me whether you thought those societies were communist. Would you like to try answering the question again?

Five Year Plan

What does communism MEAN TO YOU as far as your question goes? How does Five Year Plan define 'communism'? What do you MEAN by 'communist', and I'll answer your fucking question. If you're asking if I think they were "classless, moneyless' societies than no.

WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS OF SUCH A QUESTION? That the usage of the word in the past sixty years to describe states run by self proclaimed Communists should be politically corrected today? That saying "they weren't TRULY" Communist is useful?

Is saying America isn't a real democracy/republic useful? No. There are plenty of

218

words that used to mean something else than they did today.

Five Year Plan's mind: "blah blah blah these are all words I'm a philstine piece of shit all that is is a bunch of words evading the qeustion blah blah blah".

we've been over this before!

If an Anarcho Capitalist asked you the question: Are you opposed to a free society where individuals engage in free exchange blah blah blah... IS THAT A STRAIGHTFORWARD ANSWER? WOULD DIVULGING INTO DETAIL ABOUT WHY THE PRESUMPTIONS HE HAS ABOUT SUCH A SOCIETY ARE WRONG BE "DODGING THE QUESTION"?

-

I am just asking you whether the Soviet Union was ever a communist society in light of the meaning(s) you attribute to the word.

Five Year Plan

I attribute the meaning of communism as: the real movement derived from present circumstances to abolish the present state of things.

In another context of discussion, the word would have a different meaning, EVEN FOR ME. It's all about CONTEXT. If someone wanted to refer to the Soviet Union as a Communist state, that wouldn't matter to me. I wouldn't correct the person. I would go along with it. The meaning would then be a state ruled by Communists. Like, I KNOW WHAT HE/SHE MEANS, even if to you he/she is "technically wrong" I KNOW what he's/she's trying to say.

-

219

If I had to answer my own question, I would say that the Soviet Union was never a communist society.

Five Year Plan

You want a fucking trophy? IF WE'RE ABIDING BY YOUR PRESUMPTIONS, IF WE ASSUME THAT YOUR PRESUMPTIONS ABOUT IT ARE CORRECT then who the FUCK expects it to be difficult to answer, for you? We both have a FUNDAMENTALLY different understanding of the word.

-

So does your definition of communism lead you to believe that the Soviet Union was ever a communist society? Why or why not?

Five Year Plan

I know what you're trying to do. You're trying to use this as ammunition in later threads, maybe something to put in your signature. You're going to use my answer , take it OUT OF CONTEXT and claim "LOLOLOLOL RAFIQ TINKS IT WAZ A COMMUNIZT SOCIETY LOLOLOLOLOL". I'm saying fuck you.

If I assumed you weren't a troll, you weren't intellectually dishonest, if you were just a machine, and I HAD to put down an answer I would say, based on my definition that because the society was a result of communism as as movement, a failed result, it was. If you EVER reference that in the future, make sure to QUOTE EVERYTHING, if you put it in your signature than quote EVERYTHING. Be honest and, in case in the future you want to claim "But you think the Soviet Union was a communist

220

society" make sure you make it clear that my understanding of the word is fundamentally different than yours, and most people on this forum.

-

What I have been trying to do is to get you to answer a relatively simple question. As some advice for you, the fact that I have had to repeat the question about thirty different times before getting a straight-forward answer shows why most people just ignore what you say on this forum.

Thank you for finally clarifying, though, that you believe that the Soviet Union was a communist society.

Five Year Plan

A result of the failure of communism as a movement. The revolution failed shortly after its inception. That is WHY it can be called a communist society. As far as the social character goes, however this is not the case. What you fail to understand is that the issue is WAY more complicated than you'd like it to be.

-

When do you think it started being a communist society, and when it stopped being one?

Five Year Plan

What do YOU think the implications of any answer I would give to be? That I identify with Marxism Leninism? That I am "stupid" because even those in power of the state recognized they hadn't "achieved" communism yet? I KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO YOU FUCKING RODENT. You can't form any meaningful implications of ANY answer I give because again, your PRESUMPTIONS about it in the first place are FUNDAMENTALLY WRONG! Now go ahead and accuse me of "dodging" the question, you're a fucking troll trying to get phrases out of me which you can take out of context and use in the future.

-

Yes, and when, approximately, do you date its inception and failure? 1917? 1918? 1923?

Five Year Plan

It's inception was the October revolution of course. The revolution failed as soon as it became apparent that the revolution would not spread. It is childish to pinpoint a single date as this was a gradual process with so many complicated factors, like the fact that most of the industrial proletariat that took power in the first place had been wiped out by the civil war.

221

-

But of course Straw Man Plan, the idealist is unable to recognize history dynamically. Instead it has to be reduced to abstract bourgeois- rationalist words, dates that either fit on a children's fun-fact card or are periless attempts at dodging the "real" and "important" questions.

-

To him, the whole thing is rather simple. This is why he is not a Communist at heart. It is like he ascribes all of this to ANOTHER abstract universe divorced from our own - leaving the complexity, the givens and the zigzags to the hounds of bourgeois ideology.

-

We'll try this again: when do you think communism began in the Soviet Union collapsed? You gave October 1917 as the rough/approximate beginning. When did it end?

Five Year Plan

Let me make this clear: The revolution failed shortly after the civil war. The rest was a result of that failure.

-

So it failed around late 1922 or early 1923 then?

Five Year Plan

There isn't a single date from which we can claim it failed, so that a few weeks earlier it would be possible to say it hadn't failed yet. That's not how history works. There was never a single day in which capitalism formed. Never a single date, or even a year. The nature of the revolution's failure became apparent gradually, but following shortly after the civil war, its failure was obvious, from where we stand now looking back.

-

Well, no, I'm not asking for a single date. I am asking for clarification on the general time frame you take to be "shortly after the civil war." I am guessing it is late 1922 and early 1923. Is my guess correct?

Five Year Plan

I think by that time it would be obvious that it wasn't heading in a good direction. I

222

think by the time Marxism Leninism became state ideology this is also an important indicator. But yes around the civil war the revolution failed. Communist ideology still persisted for quite a while, but was slowly degenerating, just like the Soviet Union's politics.

I would recommend this link to have all your questions answered: http://www.napoleon- series.org/ins/scholarship98/c_eroica.html

MEGAMANTROTSKY

That's actually very interesting. I didn't know that. I've always held Beethoven as a personal hero of mine.

pretty much confirmed your bullshit position on why the Soviet state remained communist (they believed they were, therefore they were!), fully justifying my use of that Marx quote that places you in the same camp as Hegel. I have nothing more to say to you on this matter, so move on or continue to flail around.

MEGAMANTROTSKY

I think what you're missing is a matter of defining Communism. If we define it as a completely new mode of production then no, it wasn't as I've said before. In the context of a proletarian ideology, Communism didn't last very long. But within the context of cold war politics I don't think it's particularly useful to be refrain from calling it communist as this is what it is historically adopted. Technically no, it wasn't even ideologically - but we call it Communism because we associate it with the phenomena of Communism. Even if it was state capitalist I would still refer to it as a Communist state. Because it's not like it has nothing to do with Communism as a movement, and Communism as a movement is how Marx defined Communism.

But you're right, it would be ridiculous to say they are something just because those in power claim this is what they are (on a material level). That isn't what I'm saying though.

-

I said in their minds they were defending hte revolution. Good people were in power doing bad things. I was trying to say that it wouldn't have been much different had someone like Trotsky had been at helm.11

11 I don't think anybody here would dispute that Stalin and his minions thought they were doing what they had to do, and thought that they were defending the revolution in the process. If Trotsky had been at the helm, who knows what would have happened? The only way he would have found himself there was with a renewed proletarian movement in Russia to sweep away bureaucratic decay, which in turn might have inspired a proletarian resurgence in Western Europe. In the end we will never know.

Five Year Plan

223

Re: Beards, Bananas and...Bell-bottoms?

A problem with Albania among other states was the absence of a sexual revolution. And all advances (or openings) in sexual freedom (for example in Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union) coincided with market reforms and ideological softening - I think this is deeply telling. Women's status was astronomically elevated in comparison to the feudal sexual condition but compared to other bourgeois states they were lagging in some ways. For example female tourists having to heighten the length of their skirts isnt exactly a good sign. Social conservatism could have been a logical result of being excluded from "the world" (not literally, but the historical world, the world as in the hegemonic ideological, political structures).

Albania was not a crazy country. It wasn't ridiculous and such policies as condemnation of beards are completely understandable within their respective context. To say otherwise is mindless and ignorant.

-

224

Condemning beards is most definitely ridiculous. Even if we were to accept the logic on its own merits, it's still an incredibly petty way to deal with the issue as they saw it.

The Feral Underclass

Symbolic gestures that had cosmetic significance existed in every radical bourgeois revolution. The Sans-culottes come to mind. It wouldn't be so ridiculous to hear instances of banning certain fashions as they carry reactionary connotations throughout the history of such revolutions. And in a country like Albania, beards had different connotations than they do elsewhere - context is important. They were associated with the clergy and banning them was not a means of any sort of harm reduction or utilitarianism - it was simply a symbolic gesture. I highly doubt such a policy would have really persisted after Albania completed an industrialization or achieved full modernization. Albania today is among the most backward of all of Europe - evidently they did not complete it. -

So you are suggesting that Hoxha's regime was overseeing not a socialist revolution, but a bourgeois revolution?

Five Year Plan

I regard the phenomena of Stalinism as radical-liberal (in the sense of classical liberalism) in nature and I have always regarded socialism in the third world as a series of bourgeois revolutions against the vestiges of feudalism. This has been my position for a very long time.

Even though the bourgeois class itself did not actively engage in the state that is beyond the point. The state can assume the character of a certain class without actually engaging that class. Not to say that the state itself was a new bourgeoisie, but that the state laid the social foundations for capitalism. It is no wonder that ex- Communists are so prevalent in bourgeois politics following the collapse of the Eastern bloc - or how efficient the Chinese are in managing capitalism.

-

Well, no, if you regard them as "bourgeois revolutions against the vestiges of feudalism," then you can't call them "socialism in the third world." You see, Marx distinguished between bourgeois revolutions, which placed the state on the social basis of capital accumulation, and socialist revolutions, which brought to power the proletarian class seeking to dismantle capitalism by leading a transition to a socialist society. In the first revolution, a capitalist class has control over the state apparatus, and in the second, the proletarian class does.

Five Year Plan

I think the phenomena of Stalinism entails an understanding of bourgeois socialism. It may very well not be socialism technically, but then again Communist states were not 'technically' Communist - and yet I refer to them as such because they were ruled by self-proclaimed Communists, it is a distinct flavor that

225

encompassed a good part of 20th century geopolitics. They mean different things in different contexts - perhaps I should have said "socialism" (with quotations) in the third world. I mean there is obviously a distinguishable characteristic of these countries as compared to liberal democracies - at least on an ideological level.

They are unique as far as bourgeois states go. Again, you're creating a semantic argument out of nothing. Also if Marx and Engels were so adament about how they defined socialism then why did they talk of petty bourgoeis socialism and utopian socialism, too? Do these entail the dictatorship of the proletarian class as well? If not, then I don't see why an understanding of bourgeois socialism is impossible.

The class which held power in Albania was certainly not the proletariat and on a direct level neither the bourgeoisie. The state acted purely in a conscious, administrative manner by which it laid the social foundations to capitalism. Such states possessed no long-term viability just as Robespierre's reign of terror had no long term viability and was bound to end eventually. A state entails the dictatorship of a certain class - but this isn't always so direct (Mussolini and Hitler were 'above' the capitalist class on a direct level in the sense that their states could override them). You can act on behalf of a class without actually being engaged with that class on a direct level.

While the Albanian state did not necessarily empower the national bourgeoisie while it existed, it laid the foundations for their empowerment. The same can be said of the Jacobins.

-

But please, make this another discussion on terminology. Avoid the topic at hand. Five Year Plan you are the grand emperor of semantics. You're like people who are obsessed with grammar, it doesn't really mean anything as far as the discussion goes so either respond accordingly or don't say anything at all.

-

So in your sharp Marxist mind, there is something called "bourgeois socialism," and states that preside over classes, but have no ruling classes. Or are you saying that while the bourgeoisie "indirectly" ruled in the sense that the state was a capitalist one intended to advance the interests of capital accumulation systematically over the proletariat? It's difficult to pin you down on this issue, which is highly substantive and not about "just semantics" at all. And for somebody who rants endlessly about "Orthodox" Marxism, you sure are prone to developing some quite bizarre deviations from anything even remotely resembling Marxism.

Five Year Plan

226

There is also something called petty bourgeois socialism and utopian socialism, FYP. I think that the developments of such states, of which there was nothing even of any semblance during Marx's time, force us to form assessments that Marx was unable to. Even the developments of the October revolution and the Russian situation prompted Lenin to claim Of this, Marx and Engels have not said a word. The intentions of the state consciously are another manner, but the result was that they laid the social foundations for capitalism. Again, read my post carefully. The state was temporary in nature, it had no long-lasting potential (like the Jacobins).

Orthodox Marxism does not mean we ignore all of the developments of the 20th century. IT means consistently formulating positions based on the fundamental principles of Marxism in accordance with new developments.

Seeing that you accused Hoxha of being a Third World Caesarean socialist, you really have no fucking idea of what DNZ is talking about anyway - how is this position (about bourgeois socialism), by the way, in any way related to Third World Caesrean socialism? Explain yourself, please.

-

Precisely because the Albanian state did not have a real ruling class other than itself is why it collapsed. Also don't act like the phenomena of Stalinism can be categorized within the framework of capitalist states during Marx's time - I have yet to find a really convincing explanation of the nature of these states among any major Marxist currents. From their inception to their collapse they force us to re- evaluate a great many things, that is certain. What Communist states effectively did for the bourgeoisie was destroy the remnants of feudalism and lay the social foundations for their class dictatorship. This wasn't a conscious conspiracy, as any Marxist can recognize. It was Marx who knew that people do things in history without knowing it, or without consciously recognizing the character of their actions.

-

So the members of the state were constitutive of the ruling class. What was the nature of this class? Proletarian or capitalist?

Five Year Plan

As far as their relation to production goes, neither.

-

If they were a class operating under capitalism, then they must be one, the other, or some mix of the two. Is there

227

another option I am missing here? Feudal lord, perhaps?

Five Year Plan

Lenin recognized history as more complex - going through zigzags, two steps forward and one back. The point is that such developments force us to recognize such conditions accordingly even if we cannot categorize them based on our understanding of previous conditions. Because Stalinism had no long term potential it is effectively like a non mode of production with no long term viability. While the social foundations (for capitalism) were being laid this does not mean a mode of production was being effectively reproduced.

Your understanding is mechanistic and abstract. The concept of the proletarian class (for example) comes from an understanding of a real existing class, not the other way around.

-

You still haven't answered the question: if the officials were a class, what class were they? You've only said what classes they weren't.

Five Year Plan

They, among others in power in Communist states constitute a unique class uncategorized by Marxists before they came into existence. And they remain relatively uncategorized with several theories prompted by Marxists today that there exist hints of truth in - but are ultimately largely insufficient.

-

In other words, they were a ruling class whose character, whose dynamic of reproduction, you can't specify

Five Year Plan

So if they are not a capitalist class, or a proletarian class but something we have yet to properly categorize - they are simply not a class at all and are "non societies". Is class an abstract concept to you? Not every society has the same social relatoinships to production.

-

Five Year Plan: Societies are either capitalist (as far as our constrained understanding of capitalism goes, capitalism in the early 20th century I suppose) or socialist. The rest are non-societies.

Can you verify this quote for me? I can't seem to find an exact source but something tells me you think this.

-

Once a society has achieved a capitalist level of development, yes, societies either remain capitalist or they transition to socialism/communism. There is no "new" mode of production or "non-mode of production" that Marx was too

228

stupid to envision. If you can point to a quote where Marx envisions a society that engages in capitalist relations and development without a capitalist class, I am open to seeing what quotes or citations you can provide of that.

Five Year Plan

Of something like Stalinism Marx and Engels have not said a word (to paraphrase Lenin). New developments, mutations, awkward turns and confusions in history prompt us to analyse them using the fundamental principles of Marxism - but within the constrains of Marx's writings. Within the constrains of Marx's writings everything after the late 19th century did not exist. your understanding of capitalism (as far as a Marxist understanding goes) is incredibly shallow. Albania, if I am correct did have a national bourgeoisie - but we're talking about the nature of the state.

Marx could not have envisioned Stalinism not because he was stupid, but because he was not an oracle or a fortune teller. You don't understand the conditions of such countries. Around the time of their inception a great bulk of the world still had not overcome feudal relations - Stalinism was an effective means of destroying feudalism and laying the social foundations of capitalism. As the state did not effectively serve the interests of capital (why do you ignore my Jacobin comparison?) it either collapsed, was deposed, - or it adjusted accordingly (I.e. China).

This isn't too hard to understand. However you predictably are insistent on demanding the class character of such states in terms of either capitalism of the 19th century or socialism (which has never existed, we have no examples, just your childish abstractions). The point is that these were anti-feudal stages in the development of capitalism with no long term viability. You don't understand that the ability to properly reproduce relations on both a social and ideological level is essential to the properly categorization of a social epoch. You could have a state that takes a hunter gatherer character within a slave society. You could have any combination of anything theoretically speaking - the point is that IT COULD NOT LAST.

Granted these states lasted for several decades, this reflects the magnitude of the state's ability to sustain itself. But the demand for bourgeois democracy was as natural and predictable when the time came nearing their end.

-

229

Please point out where I denied the existence of such classes. We are talking about the nature of the STATE.

-

Yes, but when you say that the class that existed was defined by its direct involvement in running the state as bureaucrats, you can't make the distinction you are trying to make here, except as a pointless analytic one intended to be yet another of your endless diversions.

Five Year Plan

The bureaucracy could potentially be categorized as a class because it did possess a relationships to production. They do not possess a social relationship to production that is identical to that of the capitalist class or the proletarian class. Furthermore they did not directly serve the interests of any of the class of which they governed and instead constituted a temporary class of their own (after the state fell, they were dissolved as a class, the cocoon of Albanian society had finally morphed into the big beautiful butterfly). Because this class is unknown, unidentified without any real word to describe it, I am incapable of telling you "what class it is". There exist classes, or groups of people with relationships to production that are neither proletarian or bourgeois, or petty bourgeois for that matter. Stalinism constituted a new development in the history of capitalist development that had previously been unseen.

Marx and Engels knew history was not linear, or so rigid and that it was more complex than "WICH UR DA CLASSES R DAY PROLES OR BOURGEOISIE". For example, Marx described Louis Napoleon's ascent to power as being reliant on the support of the lumpen proletariat. Again, an understanding of the Proletariat and Bourgeoisie came from an understanding of their present conditions, not the other way around. Marx did not have the archetype of the proletariat only to rigidly apply such an archetype to all circumstances. Different developments entail different categorizations.

I would like to ask you, Five Year Plan: Are you claiming that the Albanian state constituted a capitalist class? Furthermore, what are your positions on the subject since you are so interested in mine? You accuse me of only forming negative conclusions, i.e. what the Albanian state was not - but you seem to be only good for trying to discredit what I am saying. So let's hear it, FYP, what are your affirmative positions with regard to the Albanian state? I anxiously await you to describe them as "state capitalist", I will crush you with perfect ease. Better yet,

230

follow your Trotskyist Spart-sympathizing traditions and describe it as a deformed worker's state. I can't wait to hear what you have to say.

-

Could potentially? Wait, I thought you said they were a class earlier. Now, instead of giving any kind of answer to what class they were, you are backtracking to the position that they only might have been a class. Then people wonder why I constantly accuse you of trolling.

Five Year Plan

Well I will admit, I don't think I've ever come across a perfectly viable explanation of the class nature 20th century Communism. So while we know what the Albanian state was NOT, we certainly do not know for sure what it was. What we do know, is that the ideological character of Stalinism is radical-liberal in nature, what we do know is that Stalinism is very reminiscent of the short-lasting revolutionary sentiments of the bourgeoisie during the French revolution. Perhaps this can reveal a great deal (especially considering the feudal nature of these countries before Stalinism). Ticktin's is the most useful explanation I have found, despite its weak sentiments. He also refers to Stalinist countries as "non-mode(s) of production" which solely laid the foundations for capitalism.

I think it's fair to ask: if their relationship to the means of production is neither proletarian nor bourgeois, how is capitalist development taking place under their direct control and command? If they are playing the function of accumulators of capital, they are, by definition, capitalist. You, on the other hand, want to claim that they were functioning as capitalists, but weren't really capitalists. I hope onlookers can see how anti-Marxist that position is.

Five Year Plan

The state did not function as capitalists. There is a difference between laying the foundations for capitalist relations, and actually assuming the class character of the capitalist class. The state could never constitute a capitalist class as far as Marx understood the term - the absence of private property and generalized commodity production would make such a categorization childish and ridiculous. -

Classic Rafiq diversionary tactics. I never said history was unilinear. I never said that a bureaucracy can't rule in a bonapartist way over a capitalist state. What allows Bonaparatists to do so is that they allow actual capitalists to maintain their economic power. But there were no bourgeois capitalists in Albania after collectivization early in Hoxha's rule. There were only state accumulators of capital, whom you insist on saying did not have the character of the capitalist class. Please come back to our actual discussion any time you're ready

Five Year Plan

Bonapartist? Oh, that's so cute! Little Trotskyist terminiology. Are you aware of what Bonapartism is other than "urrrr dictatruship dat forms aftar degenration". For one, Albania never underwent a proletarian revolution so the accusation of Bonapartism, even in Trotskyist terms is laughable. There was no revolution to become degenerate, there was no military dictatorship, there were certainly no Tukhachevsky esque campaigns of conquest. You have not only utilized a stupid

231

and worthless term, you have done it in a way that isn't even remotely appropriate.

You accuse Albania of being a capitalist state in this temporary, transition phrase - yet you are unable to provide evidence that there existed generalized commodity production, capitalist accumulation, private property and the presence of profit. It's stupid and childish to say that the state made profit by extracting surplus value from the working class in order to simply live lavishly or whatever the fuck you'd say. Their lavish lifestyle was a rather minimal, insignificant sector of the Albanian economy. So there was no real profit.

So rather than acknowledging Albania as a temporary non-mode of production with the state destroying the remnants of feudalism and thereby creating the social conditions of capitalism - you say that the Albanian state was a capitalist state. And why? because you say so?

-

I think that for the same reason you are unable to understand my arguments is for the same reason you are unable to understand Marxism - for the same reason that you're a Trotskyist.

-

What argument? All you've done is say that there was a class (maybe) in charge of the state (which wasn't proletarian or capitalist), but that you can't really say much else about it. On top of that, you've tried to give the appearance of substance by grasping at side issues like linearity in history. But when it comes down to it, the truth of the matter is that you haven't really got an argument.

Five Year Plan

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2777356&postcount=122

-

Drown in your ignorance, Five Year Plan. You're literally being deliberately ignorant.

-

Let me know when you decide what class nature the state and exploiting "people" (class? caste?) had in Albania

Five Year Plan

Well you don't understand what the word class actually means beyond proletarian and bourgeois so this would effectively be impossible. The discussion is over, and you lose again.

-

I would like to understand what you mean when you use "class" to describe Albanian exploiters, but as we've already seen, you can't help me understand because you don't know.

Five Year Plan

232

Sure, let's just presume the Albanian state to be an exploiting class and from there we can claim I'm ridiculous by claiming they were not capitalist in nature. Nice try.

Unsurprisingly I find myself forced to re-quote myself

You accuse Albania of being a capitalist state in this temporary, transition phrase - yet you are unable to provide evidence that there existed generalized commodity production, capitalist accumulation, private property and the presence of profit. It's stupid and childish to say that the state made profit by extracting surplus value from the working class in order to simply live lavishly or whatever the fuck you'd say. Their lavish lifestyle was a rather minimal, insignificant sector of the Albanian economy. So there was no real profit.

The Albanian state, the Albanian bureaucracy did not assume the role of a capitalist class. Exploitation is not some moralist rhetoric, it describes a real economic relationship between the capitalist class and the proletariat with absolutely no moral connotations. So the Albanian state may have worked the Albanian worker class tirelessly to death, it does not mean there is exploitation. -

I think the point you're missing here is that your position is effectively a non-position that says nothing to help anybody understand how exploitation occurred in Albania .

Five Year Plan

If exploitation existed in Albania, than it did not derive from the state. Was there an active (notice the difference between active and non-active in the sense that laying the foundations for one is possible) national bourgeoisie? Admittedly, I am not sure. There existed such a thing in countries like East Germany and Hungary, but given Albania's collectivization efforts this is something I highly doubt.

But the discussion wasn't on the "how exploitation in Albania occurred". It was about the class nature of Albania. What I claimed is that because history is not linear, because history is complicated and does not go through rigidly defined stages (rather there is usually transition) Albania was a non-mode of production, as described by Tiqqin - which effectively only could ever have existed temporarily laying the social foundations for capitalism. Whether the state constituted a ruling class is up for debate, but the point is that if it did it was incapable of reproducing the conditions of its rule indefinitely, or at least long enough to be really

233

distinguished historically as a ruling class. Sure they did have a relation to production, but what they effectively did not have is something I would call social legitimacy - the ability to exist long enough and encompass the entirety of society, ideologically and politically to be constituted as a real ruling class, rather than a bastard of history bound to die. So I'm not evading anything, I am challenging your mechanistic presumption that Albania was a real distinguishable social epoch rather than a transition between two different social epochs (feudalism and capitalism).

You'll claim: "You still don't offer any insight about the class nature of the Albanian state, only could be's or maybe's". Well that's the point. We know very well what they are not, and we are able to assess what they could have been. I cannot be certain that they were a class, because this drips into a field untouched by Marxism: It is a question about classes not really solved - is a ruling social group that is unable to reproduce its own existence in the long term and establish social, ideological and political legitimacy a ruling class as Marx described them? I'm not making declarations, I humbly recognize my own ignorance here, too. I don't know. That doesn't change the fact that we know what it was not, however.

-

To interject there was no absence of private property in any stalinist state as rafiq claims, there was onky an absence of individual private property.

Tim Cornelis

Right. There was an absence of bourgeois property, but private property in the sense of 'asocial' property extending to the means of production obviously existed.

Five Year Plan

What exactly does "asocial" property mean? If it is asocial property than it would be something along the lines of a toothbrush, or a personal possession. Just because it is not, to your definition belonging to the commons does not make it "asocial". I confess I don't know what you mean. Can you clarify for me?

If the state is in possession of all property, than how did there exist private property? The state, whether democratic or not represents the commons. Property is in common even if the state is despotic in nature, as it represents the interests of the state, the country as a whole. I don't buy into the narrative that the state was made up of officials cynically living parasitically off of everyone bellow them. What did they gain? Luxury, and so on? This doesn't mean much as far as social

234

character goes.

-

On a slightly unrelated note it's strange how Trotskyists refer to Stalin's rule as "bonapartist" when Tukhachevsky's camp was clearly the only potential for anything close to a "bonapartist" state to exist. Expressing support for him earlier I have, as a result of further studies revised such a claim in light of discovering his reactionary ideological tendencies. Frunze is the candidate I was looking for.

-

Leaving aside the interesting question of who or what Tiqqin is (South African communist meets french commune/collective?): what you go on to describe and give as grounds for this claim is precisely a conception of history as rigidly defined stages.

Zukunftsmusik

My bad, it's Ticktin not Tiqqin. A stupid mistake, I most likely confused the name with Tiqqun. https://libcom.org/library/what-was-...cktin-aufheben

It is undeniable that there exist distinct social epochs which are identifiable and distinguishable from each other - the point I was making, Zuk, is that due to the existence of social or political transitional phrases, these social epochs are not so rigidly defined as stages. The point is that yes Feudalism is distinct from Capitalism - but the transition dissalows us to form the conclusion that they are rigid set stages of history. Understand?

-

Earlier you said that Stalinism was a means for states to overcome feudalism and lay the foundations for capitalism. How does a state lay the foundations for capitalism without exploiting anybody? Why do you think that the absence of a bourgeoisie with individual titles to private property means the same thing as the absence of a class?

Classes are defined by their relationship to processes of economic exploitation. So if you fail to see the direct relevance that our discussion about exploitation by the state has to the issue of the class nature of the Albanian state, then you are having significant difficulties with the basics of Marxist theory and should probably be spending more time asking elementary questions in the Learning subforum.

Five Year Plan

The point is that you presume Stalinism was an affirmative social epoch - it was not. It layed the foundations for capitalism not by establishing capitalism but by acting as a negative force that abolished the vestiges of feudalism thereby laying the social foundations for capitalism. So to answer your question, of how the state lays the foundations for capitalism without "exploiting" anyone it does so through abolishing the vestiges of feudalism.

Now you concur that there did not exist a national bourgeoisie in Albania under the

235

rule of the PPSH. Correct? We can therefore assume that even if there did exist exploitation by the state (which would force us to re-approach and re-conceptualize our notion of exploitation, as the state represented the commons and all labor was utilized for the commons) - such exploitation was not capitalist in nature. So if capitalist exploitation did not exist, then your question must be "How were the social foundations for capitalism layed if capitalist exploitation did not exist?". Unless you disagree that the Albanian state was not capitalist in nature (which I have shown in recent posts here, which you have ignored) - then your question is irrelevant and cannot stand. Capitalist exploitation is not a pre-requisite for paving the way for capitalist development.

And sorry, defining classes solely based on their relationship to exploitation in the first place sounds incredibly one-sided and ideological. Classes are defined by their distinct social relationships to production first and foremost. When Marx spoke of exploitation, he referred specifically to an economic relationship between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, scientifically, not as a means to convey moral or ideological rhetoric. It is possible to view history as the various distinguishable forms of exploitation, however this would be ideological and not scientific. There is more to it than simply the process of exploitation, including petty artisan classes, traveling merchant caravans in places like Arabia, and so on before capitalist development. While labor exists as the sole basis of all wealth in every society, it is hardly useful to distinguish these societies solely by the exploitation of labor rather than various classes with distinct relationships to production. In context it is understandable to say this, however, that classes are defined by their relationship to exploitation. But this is exclusive to distinct social epochs.

Which leads me to my main point: Albania was not its own affirmative social epoch. We can recognize that classes existed in Albania and capitalist exploitation did not exist. But again this was a negative condition unable to reproduce those very conditions, no affirmative absence of capitalist exploitation was established (the point was not that they had overcome capitlaist exploitation, but that capitalist exploitation did not exist as a consequence of their conditions), just one long continual political gesture. -

I would say that Hoxha taking power in his 30s and dying in power over fifty years later is somebody who was "able to reproduce his own existence in power over the long term." How long does a group need to be able to reproduce its own power in order for it to qualify as an exploiting class? 10 years? 40? 400? And where in Marx's texts do you

236

find this criterion?

Five Year Plan

I was waiting for you to ask that. It's actually not a ridiculous question. If we are talking about the lifespan of a single man and his political career, then I suppose you are right - he was able to reproduce the conditions of his own power right up until his very death. However if social conditions were defined by the positions of statesmen, then I don't think we would be Marxists to begin with. Perhaps it is you who should return to the learning forum, I'm sure you were there little over a year ago. You seem to be under the impression that the entirety of the Albanian condition was defined by the rule of a single man. This sounds like a Great Man theory of history to me.

The point is not "how long" they are able to reproduce their own existence. I do not measure their inability to reproduce the social conditions of life in the long term based on the short amount of time they ruled. Rather, it is based on the very nature of these societies: For one, mass cynicism is a defining characteristic of the impotency of the state apparatus to ideologically reproduce itself. Another problem was that their failure was recognizable at their inception. It could be ten years, or seventy, it does not matter - actually many have commented on the sheer wonder of how Stalinist countries were able to survive as long as they did. Anyone with an ounce of understanding of these countries can recognize they could not have lasted longer than they did.

Social epochs come to an end as a result of class contradictions - one class overthrows another. This was not the case in Communist states. They collapsed - they were not overthrown by classes pursuing their class interests - the state was literally unable to sustain itself.

There's so much you just don't address, Five Year Plan. It's like you tacitly concede defeat and jump to another ridiculous argument. The question you just posed is just about the only worthwhile argument you've proposed this entire thread.

-

You're so adept at trying to start ninety different subdiscussions

Five Year Plan

Hey guys, go over and check out the Soviet Union plan and then come back and read that I'm being accused of starting new discussions.

237

You have to remember you're dealing with somebody a lot more disciplined and focused than you, Rafiq. The issue we're discussing is whether you can characterize the class nature of the Albanian state. You keep wanting to tip-toe around that issue and change the discussion to everything else besides. But those other observations you keep wanting to make, don't mean much, in the absence of a conclusion about what all that says about the class nature of the state.

What was the class nature of the Albanian state?

Five Year Plan

Straw Man Plan might be good for self-praise and self-aggrandizement, but not much more. Do you actually consider being intellectually constrained, narrow- minded and festering in philistine ignorance to be "focused" and "disciplined". If you're not a troll, you're literally a child at best, you have the attention span of one and surely an eleven year old has better reading comprehension than you do. You are either unable to understand the most basic and rudimentary forms of logic - or you are deliberately dishonest. And quite honestly I think it's a combination of both. You're a Trotskyist, you're in a different world by which everything is reduced to. You are unable to understand things outside of your ideological protest movement - so you have to reduce it to a language only you can understand.

The problem here Five Year Plan is that you don't get to decide the laws of language here. Meaning, you don't get to decide what we are going to presume first, and then argue afterwards. I am not going to buy into, or adhere to your FALSE presumptions about for example: Albania being a distinct social epoch with a rigidly defined class structure that is historically distinct, rather than a transition phrase. I'm literally destroying you head on and you accuse ME of "tip toeing"? There isn't a motherfucker in the room more prone to tip toeing than Five Year Plan, who picks and chooses which arguments he wants to address, who sometimes completely fucking ignores the main topic of discussion and formulates a new straw man WHEN I BURN DOWN his previous one. I've explained countless times: You're asking a FALSE QUESTION in the first place, because Albania was not an affirmative social epoch. We know very well what the class nature of the Albanian state is not, and we know what the function of this state was LOOKING BACK today (abolishing the remnants of feudalism). But you want to know what else I've said? Five Year Plan thinks I'm dodging something, like I'm deliberately

trying to evade the question. I said, because of the factors I mentioned

I do not know the precise class nature of the Albanian state, I

238

said Ticktin had offered some decent insight but what I do know is that most of the formulations, ESPECIALLY by Trotsky about the social nature of Stalinist countires are UNIQUELY WRONG.

You don't know how logic works. Just because I know what something IS NOT doesn't mean I know exactly what IT IS. Do you believe in gods, Five Year Plan? I don't know everything about the fucking universe but what I do know is that all of the religious narratives in regards to it are wrong.

But go ahead, ignore everything. Talk about how I'm evading the discussion and starting new ones. Well fuck the parameters of Straw Man Plan's discussion, you don't get to decide what we presume. YOUR PRESUMPTIONS are false in the first place! One doesn't PRESUME that the ideology of liberalism is correct only to argue from there - NO, we attack the BASIS of argument. You can call that "changing the discussion" all you fucking want, but you're still infinitely wrong. You don't ignore everything I've said, and explained, and then continue to ask the same question over and over again like a fucking broken record. That's called trolling. The fundamental presumptions you have about the nature of the Albanian state is wrong, no it CANNOT BE CATEGORIZED AS A DISTINCT SOCIAL EPOCH. You said "Where did I ever claim Stalinist countries represented a new social epoch?", well if they were not capitalist, which we have established, and you refuse to acknowledge that they did not have a state which was able to reproduce its own existence in the long term, that these conditions possessed no long term viability - then you BET YOUR ASS you categorize them as a new social epoch.

239

Five Year Plan asks questions, I answer them, destroy his arguments, THE ARGUMENTS HE HIMSELF WAS ENGAGING IN and then what happens? He claims he wants to "go back to the source" and bring up the same nonsesne I destroyed maybe ten posts earlier? So what the fuck, is this like a cycle? In ten posts is he going to accuse me of evading the question of:

I would say that Hoxha taking power in his 30s and dying in power over fifty years later is somebody who was "able to reproduce his own existence in power over the long term." How long does a group need to be able to reproduce its own power in order for it to qualify as an exploiting class? 10 years? 40? 400? And where in Marx's texts do you find this criterion?

When I clearly addressed it with

I was waiting for you to ask that. It's actually not a ridiculous question. If we are talking about the lifespan of a single man and his political career, then I suppose you are right - he was able to reproduce the conditions of his own power right up until his very death. However if social conditions were defined by the positions of statesmen, then I don't think we would be Marxists to begin with. Perhaps it is you who should return to the learning forum, I'm sure you were there little over a year ago. You seem to be under the impression that the entirety of the Albanian condition was defined by the rule of a single man. This sounds like a Great Man theory of history to me.

The point is not "how long" they are able to reproduce their own existence. I do not measure their inability to reproduce the social conditions of life in the long term based on the short amount of time they ruled. Rather, it is based on the very nature of these societies: For one, mass cynicism is a defining characteristic of the impotency of the state apparatus to ideologically reproduce itself. Another problem was that their failure was recognizable at their inception. It could be ten years, or seventy, it does not matter - actually many have commented on the sheer wonder of how Stalinist countries were able to survive as long as they did. Anyone with an ounce of understanding of these countries can recognize they could not have lasted longer than they did.

240

Social epochs come to an end as a result of class contradictions - one class overthrows another. This was not the case in Communist states. They collapsed - they were not overthrown by classes pursuing their class interests - the state was literally unable to sustain itself.

If he's so anal about the fucking "real discussion" about the "class nature" of the Albanian state then why does he ask such questions and engage in the fucking discussion HERE in the first place?

First he wants to know the "nature of exploitation" in Albania, check, now it's solely about the "class nature" when I prove such a stupid question wrong? Keep going, Five Year Plan. Keep utilizing your magnificent ability to "focus" and "discipline" and I'll knock you down on your ass every time.

-

Are the gigantic fonts really necessary?

Alexios

Yeah, they are. The entire premise of all of his arguments rests on ignorance of the content of my posts. So they're there, and I don't think anyone can fucking ignore them if they're that big.

-

he has claimed that he doesn't know what the class nature of the Albanian state was, while simultaneously calling it communist.

Five Year Plan

Please pinpoint where exactly I referred to the class nature of the Albanian state as communist. Straw Man Plan, the focused and disciplined Trotskyist is destroyed in preivous threads and thinks that re-hashing the arguments in this one will make them any less bunk.

-

Please re-read my post. I said you identified the Albanian state as a communist state

Five Year Plan

All that means is the character of those in power as well as the distinct association of the Albanian state with the general phenomena of Communist states during the cold war - which entails a number of things on a political level.

That doesn't say anything about the class nature of the Albanian state, it doesn't say anything about the social nature of the Albanian state: Want me to shock you, troll? 20th century Communism in that same sense was radical-liberal in nature and not

241

communist. The child doesn't understand that words have different meanings in different contexts.

-

Five Year Plan probably thinks Fascism entails a specific MODE OF PRODUCTION, too. And he'll say "that's not what Communism means!" it has taken a different meaning as a result of the events of the 20th century. You want it back? Then hope for the revival of a worker's movement.

-

As I said, you think calling a state communist does not entail taking a position on its class nature.

Five Year Plan

It usually entails the specific and unique class nature of THOSE STATES as they existed. What it doesn't entail is the Communism Marx spoke of, as THE MEANING OF THE WORD HAS CHANGED AS A RESULT OF THE EVENTS OF THE PAST SEVENTY YEARS OR SO.

Now on a political level IT IS LOGICAL TO DEDUCE That they possess the same character of social relations but that DOESN'T NECESSARILY entail a class character as we do not refer to them as Communist in describing class relations!

-

If you think calling a state communist entails taking a position on the class nature of those states, why have you throughout this thread been repeating that you do not know the class basis of the Albanian state (a state you call communist)? You said very clearly in post #153: "I do not know the precise class

nature of the Albanian state."

Five Year Plan

Because saying it was "Communist" doesn't tell us anything except the political, ideological nature of the state. Replace Communist with Stalinist. THEY MEAN THE SAME THING AS FAR AS THE POLITICAL CONNONTATIONS OF COMMUNISM GO IN THE COLD WAR.

242

I DO NOT KNOW THE PRECISE CLASS NATURE OF COMMUNIST STATES, I KNOW THAT THEY ARE ALL VERY SIMILAR AND FOLLOW A GENERAL TREND BUT I DO NOT KNOW THE PRECISE CLASS NATURE. WHAT I DO KNOW IS ENOUGH ABOUT THOSE STATES TO DISTINGUISH THEM FROM OTHERS WITH A WORD.

-

JUST BECAUSE it "entails" a class nature doesn't mean I know what that class nature is specifically!

-

Because the political meaning of the word has changed - in that it is, and was no longer associated with the interests of the proletarian class.

the political meaning of the word has changed

the political meaning of the word has changed

the political meaning of the word has changed

Notice how in EVERY thread where I talk about it - I refer to any potential Communism today to be a New Communism.

243

-

My entire exchange with you here has been premised on me trying to ascertain your views on Albania under Enver Hoxha, Albania's state, and its society in light of your current existing understanding of what communism is, what exploitation is, and what class is.

Five Year Plan

And I have gone over all of those things for the past billion posts tirelessly, I am beyond frustrated with your trolling. I have given you oceans of text detailing my positions on all of those things and you ignorantly dismiss all of them as "dodging" your questions. Any idiot can see I am addressing them head on - I am forced to elaborate, as I don't buy into the very presumptions you have to begin with.

-

Let's say calling them Communist states was erroneous because they were not "real" Communists. Well there is truth to that, they were ideologically radical- liberal in nature and Communism is a specific ideological manifestation of the interests of the proletariat distinct from liberalism and the presumptions of bourgeois ideology (and historically we have only seen glimpses of it in the 20th century, like during the Russian civil war). What are the IMPLICATIONS to this? That it is useful to make Communism a political correct category whereby we "correct" people who call these states Communist, even though we know what they mean? What I am concerned here is not an inability to answer the question. It's the fundamental implications you will derive from me answering the question.

So in a previous thread, in order to avoid this I claimed sure, I can call the Soviet Union a communist society because it is distinctly the offspring of a failed communist movement, a failed communist revolution. I claim that for those reasons it is understandable why they would be called such societies.

What other implications are there? That we "distance ourselves" from the whole experience and claim that isn't "our" Communism? I don't know what "our" Communism would look like, what I do know is why those societies failed and that the Soviet Union was as result of "our" endeavors as Communists.

-

the end-goal of our political struggles: communism.

Five Year Plan

So a state of affairs to be established, right? We've had this discussion and it encompassed, mutated every which way. Re-hashing it is not going to make you

244

correct. Anyone whose interested can check it out. I think Trotskyists agree that Communism failed because the revolution could not spread. It's not that those in power were "doing it wrong" just that they were unable to.

-

The point is to clarify what we mean when we say that we are fighting and struggling to establish communism in our various movement activities.

Five Year Plan

This is golden. I love this. A perfect Freudian slip.

-

You: "You're a Trotskyist, and your definition of communism is wrong."

How is it a Freudian to slip to say that we fight, in our movement activities, to establish communism (on a global scale, in my case, since unlike you I don't think it can exist in a single country)? I would love to know.

Five Year Plan

I think I've said enough honestly, people are free to look through the thread themselves.

Anyway, I didn't say that. I agree with, vaguely, the Trotskyist consensus that the revolution failed because it didn't spread. I wasn't being sarcastic, or poking fun. What I'm trying to say is that even if those in power genuinely wanted to change the social foundations of life, or "establish Communism" (which is really something I believe in Albania's case, here I don't buy into this false cynicism that they "just wanted power". Truly I believe a man like Hoxha was ideologically motivated, by Marxism Leninism. I know that's not much, there are religious fundamentalists who are ideologically motivated too. But still.) they couldn't have. The point I was trying to make is that it wasn't a matter of policy.

I think it's a good Freudian slip because it indicates how ridiculous your understanding of Communism is. Marx specifically referred to Communism as not something that is to be established, but a movement that derives from the present circumstances of life. Our goal isn't to "establish Communism" as Communism as an ideology entails a greater goal - the dictatorship of the proletariat. There is no worker's struggle, none the less a worker's struggle that has reached a mature and battle-hardened level that could possible conquer the state presently. So really, it's about where your priorities are. But again, we've had this discussion.

-

Was FYP Lucretia after all? I had that impression.

245

Also, what crap.

Herr Unrat

Lucretia was banned for apologizing for George Zimmerman. I don't think that's crap.

-

That isn't the issue. The issue is that Ismail works behind the scenes to get his political opponents banned.

Alexios

Then why aren't I banned, because of our giant quarrel two years ago? Granted, I had some delusions about it but there is no real evidence to suggest Ismail actively worked to get me banned. There were already mods and admins (not to mention users) who were suspicious of FYP. I didn't reserve such suspicions because I had no evidence, and I wasn't presented with anything to suggest that, given I never payed attention to lucretia.

Re: Circumcision Discussion (split from FGM thread)

circumcision is quite common for American Christians, both catholic and protestant. I'm not sure why they differ from Europeans in that respect, but any disdain for religion in those posts are more likely to be aimed at Christians rather than Muslims since the poster is from the US

Ethics Gradient

Here in the U.S., from my experience it is rather rare to hear about someone (who is male) who is not circumcised. I know I live in metro Detroit and there's a significant Muslim population but I don't live or work around them and I didn't go to school in any of the areas with a significant Muslim population.

246

Circumcision originated in the United States through the myth that it would lead to a decrease in male masturbation in the 19th century. Over time other justifications for male circumcision were developed, with claims that they can prevent disease and so on.

Re: To each according to his deed?

12I am middle aged. I have been involved with revolutionary politics since I was a teenager. During this time nobody has ever addressed me with this argument.

Devrim

I think that's very interesting actually. I think that goes to show, if anything the unchallenged hegemony of bourgeois ideology today as a result of the absence of affirmative class struggle.

12 As a Socialist/Communist I have always encountered the typical "binman - doctor" argument (always that exact example as if it has been beamed into peoples' minds).

Red Star Rising

247

Re: Communism Today

I know a lot of people who are detractors of communism because they are ill-educated. I am not saying we should reform communism, but would it be beneficial to write a new Communist Manifesto to better explain the purpose of our movement, condensed and able to explain Marxism, Leninism, collectivism, anarchist communism, and so on. This would not replace anything, but rather act as a supplement and a broad statement of what our beliefs and goals are. Red Warrior

Writing a new communist manifesto entails a living, breathing communist movement to already exist. If there is no spectre haunting Europe, what's the point?

248

Re: Male Monogamy?

What purpose does it serve historically? I know that for women it's important in class society for them to be monogamous, so it can be known which men the children belong to and property relations can be maintained, but why is it expected (not nearly to the same extent, but still a little) for men to be monogamous in many societies?

The Fundamental Attribution Error

Polygamy was a common feature of most societies in the past few thousand years. Western monogamy has its origins in antiquity, where men were legally prohibited from having more than one wife in order to increase the chances of acquiring wives for lower ranking men. It is largely cultural, whereas sexual relations themselves, which entail the sexual role of females is social.

In capitalism, it would be unnecessary to have more than one wife anyway, as the role of marriage was to pass property to an heir.

249

Re: Why are certain specific patterns so common in the universe?

NOTE: I'm not just talking about in biological organisms. In some cases I am, but that's more understandable I think. For example, lets suppose that a flower modeled after a Fibonacci sequence attracts more bees or something like that (made up example, just go with it). If it's in accordance with the principles of evolution, then it's a little less puzzling to me, since certain geometric compositions are obviously going to have an advantage over others in life for different reasons. However, that said, I still don't understand WHY Fibonacci spirals are evolutionarily advantageous in nature in so many cases. And there are A LOT of cases: http://wellaware1.com/docs/ear/fibonaccipdf.pdf

But we don't just see this in life. We see this throughout our universe and in non-living things. Even hurricanes and universes often resemble Fibonacci spirals.

The Fibonacci sequence isn't something anywhere near as simple as a simple triangle or circle. Although it can be easily understood what the sequence is with a few minutes of research, the sequence itself seems much more mathematically complex. Now, we have a lot of sphere-sh things in the universe too. But a sphere (or something close to a sphere) is a fairly simple shape and forms due to gravity pretty easily, so I'm not extremely surprised by this. But what when something as complex as the Fibonacci sequence is repeated over and over again in the universe, I have a hard time believing that it just happens by sheer chance, at least given my current understanding of the matter. It seems that there must be some specific reason why this pattern, and other equally complex patterns are so ever-recurring in the universe. So my question is, what is this reason? Why do we see such specific complex patterns and sequences recurring so much in the universe? And why is it those patterns and sequences rather than the other equally complex/simple ones that aren't seen extensively in nature?

If it were just one force acting upon these things forming these shapes, then I'd understand the tendency for these things to form better. But when we've got radically different types of forces like gravity and evolution (yes I know evolution isn't a force in the same way that gravity is) forming things based on the same, relatively complex patterns over and over again, I found it really confounding and hard to conceive that this just happened by chance and that there isn't some hidden unifying force behind all of it (note: not suggesting anything supernatural or "godlike", just some hidden physical force or principle of organization in the universe). Can someone please help me understand?

Skyhilist

It is important to recognize first and foremost that we perceive patterns and consciously attribute them names and so on. What I mean is that the patterns were first, our perception is secondary. Meaning something like the fibinachi sequence is a name we attribute to an identifiable pattern, it was not developed from pure thought.

The same goes for shapes. The universe doesn't care about our consciousness.

Re: In your view, what is the biggest

250

challenge to the Revolutionary Left today?

There are an infinite amount of problems. All of them come down to the state of the Left itself. The Left today is a protest movement that has accepted the infallibility of capitalist ideology. It is a Left that has lost its own heart, which is a parody of the historical Communist movement. The Left today, above all things fears power.

Another problem is that there are reactionary and petty bourgeois trends that overwhelmingly plague the Left, so much so to the point that all identification we could possibly have with much of the Left is solely cosmetic. Because the application of 20th century Communist ideology in the 21st century is reactionary - the only place something like Leninism has today is to serve a reactionary role in the totality of capitalist politics.

Notice how it is almost indecipherable to identify what it actually means to be part of the Left with the ability for (Leftists) to assume every which position. We can support reactionaries in the name of anti-Imperialism. We can support Imperialism in the name of progress. The Left has lost both its head and heart and the absence if a single, uniform Communism has destroyed the Left. Communist ideology derives from existing premises - and it is written with the blood of the worker's movement. We can only conceptualize and formulate a Communist universe (ideology) through the struggle for power by the proletariat. However the class struggle is not going to pick up. It will go through a series of bizarre fluctuations, always muddied with reactionary petty bourgeois ideology only to bring it once more to its knees. The proletariat today is ready to fight - mark my words the time for Communism is precisely now. We no longer live in the 1990's, degenerate ideologies today have formed formidable challenges to bourgeois liberalism. What's the point? The point is that the Left sees the subject, be it the "working class" or "the people" as an external subject that will carry out its Utopian aims for them. There is no 'other' which will restore our glory and rightfully assume the legacy of Communism - our whole legacy is at stake and we throw it to the dogs of superstition. We have already seen what 'the people' are doing on their own - modern emulations of Fascism and degenerate bourgeois ideologies. Dissatisfaction with the existing order never organically presumes and upholds the achievements of the existing

251

order (in retrospect to a previous one).

It is not enough to be a Marxist. Often Marxism today takes a strictly anti-political character prevailing almost solely in universities. What we need today is real Marxist politics and the merger of Marxism with the worker's movement. Marxism without Communism is blind and dispirited. We must cease to step into the abyss of obscure identity politics with all such bizarre, carefully crafted and specified formulations and return to our roots: We must re-conceptualize Marxism, we must seek a careful return to classical Marxism and understand Marx in response to Hegel who without which there would be no Marx.

To his deathbed Marx, for example, presumed many things solely introduced by Hegel. To do away with these presumptions is to do away with Marx himself.

It is ridiculous for anyone to say Communism can be casual and simply a rational deduction by the proletariat. Those who trivialize the ferocity of Communism do not recognize the power of ruling ideology. Instead they reinforce it by presuming its most basic presumptions. If Communism does not encompass the heart and soul, if Communism does not possess (I say this unapologetically) our deepest sentiments it does not exist. Communism is not adhered to as a result of basic logic or careful reasoning. Communism is an ideology and ideology constitutes a distinct universe. The desire to radically change the fundamental relations of power, the stormy alterations of revolution - as Lenin called it, can never be sustained by rationality or modest deductions alone. This pervades in our deepest sentiments, Communism is the truest expression of universal love, political love - and at the same time the scorching fires of hatred, the hatred of the damned, of the exploited against the exploiters.

The Communist spirit entails our ideas in relation to our social being. These cannot simply be developed by self consciousness or recognition of facts but a thirst - a thirst for real action. It requires real belief. A Communist who does not understand this is like a secular Jew who still refrains from eating pork out of the most basic, deep and tacit superstition. We know, but insofar as it affects our actual, immediate reality? (rather than an ABSTRACT reality).

252

Membership dues

Though I do recognize their necessity, I can see quite well how they appear completely off putting to potential members of parties that demand a monthly fee. In this completely and absolutely commercialized world, it inspires feelings of cynicism and dishonesty. In a time where the Left can very well be called dead, do parties have any right whatsoever to demand membership dues, at this point? Should parties be looking for other sources of income?

Or, alternatively, request membership fees only after a certain amount of time you are active within the party.

-

Rafiq, have you ever been a member of a political organisation? They need money to operate, and short of growing a money tree, dues is where it comes from.

Quail, I think changing your name was a mistake.

Devrim

253

I don't believe I posted anything that would allow you to infer that I do not know this. Of course they need money to operate, of course membership dues are at the moment the only form of sustainable income, I simply am talking about prescisely how they ask for them. When you want to join an organisation and you''re immediatly hit with what looks like a cheap subscription model for some weight loss program, it can be very off puting. Recognizing the honest intentions myself, for a worker who is only remotely class conscious this could induce a very cynical attitude about the whole thing.

-

Though how romantic it would be if circumstances allowed parties to obtain revenue through more creative means, as the Bolsheviks did around the time of their formation

-

The reason I am reluctant in talking about whether I have been in an organisation...

Is because I do not feel as though such an organisation is wholly reflective of my views. I don't want to identify with them. Since you are so inclined to ask, I am a member of the Detroit branch of SPUSA, because of its historical status, it's relative neutrality which allows broad discussion with other leftists of different stripes. Needless to say I am not impressed, and have a great many qualms with almost everything about it, in a way not unique to the SPUSA but communist organisations in the 21st century as a whole... Because of how relatively broad the spusa is, I feel like these problems are less significant.

Granted, it is the only organisation I have ever been in. I don't go to rallies and mainly just attend meetings. I think the problem with most organisations today is prescisely the necessity of being an intellectual. They are incapable of being a mass movement which attracts workers not based on commitment, but on immediate material necessity. The Bolsheviks were not some club that workers joined because they were intellectuals... They joined because the Bolsheviks were a sophisticated force of class struggle with real social application. This is something I've delved much deeper in, in previous posts. In short, organisations like the ICC, countless Trotskyist parties among almost all others are DISTINCTIVELY petite bourgeois in nature, NOT in the social composition of its membership but in the social nature of the organisation itself. A radical organisation should not be constituted on sound positions with no real application, but on tenets that constitute the organisation a

254

real social force. How pathetic it is for so much drama - splits and purges to occur over things with no relevancy to the success of a movement, over things that have no real effect on anything. This should be damn obvious had not our counterparts not been blind by interpersonal dramas and fantasy riddled mental masterbation.

That's why I joined something so neutral - we need movements, organisations like this. But hey, what do I know, I don't have any experience in 'real struggles', perhaps if I acquired some I could then sit beside you on your high horse to patronize some other poor sod unconvinced of the modern left's effectiveness, all the while our historical legacy... Tradition - our essence as Marxists is defiled by those in power.

-

Without appealing to the general masses and only those few highly specialized class conscious workers, you dig your own grave. Nay, you are already dead.

-

Jessica Mitford was party fundraiser in oakland during the war and after during McCarthyism, and she noticed a few issues in the system, such as the single-minded search by the leadership for "results" in membership count and income from dues, without thought as to how these were achieved and at what cost to principle (indeed their principles were rather unclear).

One major way of fundraising was to organize concerts with Pete Seeger and the Weevers, Lead Belly, Woodie Guthrie, and others, but Liberals have proven since (live 8, etc.) that they have cornered the market in this arena.

Of course some parties convinced themselves (or were convinced by FBI infiltrators) to sell drugs, and in a drug war the results of that are obvious non-starters.

Another concern was opportunism from those who saw the party as a potential investment when it looked strong. One businessman regularly contributed $500 at a time to Mitford and the party, and kept a stuffed drawer full of signed receipts for the contributions in hopes that this may one day impress a new world leadership.

This history suggests that the concepts of party organization must be rethought, so that a future movement does not resemble a cultish money scheme on one hand, or in the case of its sixties counterparts, a dazed and confused mess.

Turinbaar

It's good that you mentioned cults... The same circumstances that bred the phenomena of UFO cults in the U.S. bred the New Left.

-

But I say quite clearly that the modern left is completely ineffective. It is not that I am unconvinced that it is effective. On the commentary, I am convinced that it is ineffective.

Where does that take us though. To things like the following?

This is essentially meaningless drivel. What does it mean to say that these organisations are "DISTINCTIVELY

255

petite bourgeois in nature, NOT in the social composition of its membership but in the social nature of the organisation itself"? Now I agree that, as you say, they often have no application, and I would agree with you about their lack of relevance. This does not mean that they are "DISTINCTIVELY petite bourgeois...in the social nature of the organisation". What does this even mean? It is just empty phraseology.

There is obviously a huge problem with revolutionary organisations as they exist. What is the solution though? To complain about dues, and join the SPUSA. I think not.

Devrim

-

They are petite bourgeois because they as organisations are so politically irrelevant that they are nothing more than independent clubs with no movement or place in proletarian struggle. They are thus almost reactionary - they oppose things as they exist, but not within or from the current circumstances of life - or capitalism. They stand as spectators outside the field of struggle... As the petite bourgeois does in protecting its interests against the hordes of masses and excesses of things like finance capital. It would not surprise me at all if some resorted to merchandising to sustain themselves. what distinguished early organisations from organisations now, is that one hundred years ago there was a complete unity between these intellectuals and the workers movement.

I don't care to complain about membership dues. It's not a problem for me. I was talking about them pragmatically. If organisations require workers be as highly specialized and advanced ideologically, intellectually as a student, they should not exist. Of course leadership, direction is something else entirely, as Hegel said "philosophy (or in this case Marxism, whatever) should hope the people rise to it, but not lower itself to the people. The point is that this also addresses the immediate needs of the proletariat.

Secondly, I do not formally identify with the SPUSA. I have not yet a single person whose politics I detest, I am absolutely repulsed by "democratic socialism" and grassroots democracy. I joined because I wanted space of discussion and engagement that went beyond this website or academic settings, no matter my dissapointment. I do not vote, participate in demonstrations or anything of that nature. I can hardly be called an active member. During the early 20th century the SPUSA was a force of class struggle and Eugene Debbs himself is a celebrated hero of the proletariat. My knowledge of the organisation historically extends thus far. I was under the impression the party was multi tendency, but in my area this

256

makes little difference.

-

Care to start right from the beginning cause you're not making any sense whatsoever?

And can we have the notion of the "petite bourgeoisie" as a meaningful notion still, perhaps?

LinksRadikal

Before I begin - If you're not going to genuinely and honestly read through all of this thoroughly, then skip to the last segment, I suppose.

Marx recognized the petite bourgeoisie as a reactionary class, whose interests are independent from that of the bourgeois class and the proletariat. While the proletariat and bourgeoisie's interests are diametrically opposed, they oppose each other in correlation with developments in capitalism, or in correlation with the chaotic movement of capital. The petite bourgeoisie, conversely, seek solely to preserve themselves and their obvious economic interests (whilst, for example, the capitalist is willing to put much at stake in service of capital). If you are aware of the petite bourgeoisie, both in their social and ideological nature, you should know precisely about what I am talking about.

I can only be frustrated with you and how you approach to reply to my posts. What Linksradikal attempts to say, is that I mean to say they are petite bourgeoisie solely because they are politically irrelevant. He is literally taking phrases out of context and attempting to argue with them as such. It's beyond frustrating.

What I mean to say, is that if these organisations are politically irrelevant, if they do not exist as real forces of class struggle neither in the field of politics or economics (you know, unionising, whatever) then what can we categorize them as? Okay, let me rephrase myself. If these organisations were not formed in correlation with real manifestations and outbursts of proletarian struggle (or if they do not remain so), if they do not represent the interests of the proletariat that exists as such and is opposed to the ruling order of things (in other words, something akin to the labor movement of the early 20th century, several 'organic' worker's struggles and so on) then what place do they have in the social order of things? Everything has a place in capitalist social relations, even things that are marginalized and have no direct place still have a place. (Side note - I do not mean to say all organisations that did not form 'organically' were not proletarian in nature, organizations compromised of skilled Marxists still were unified with this proletarian movement

257

and directed it, engaged it, and so on).

So we have already established that they are not relevant with regards to proletarian struggles, they are not genuine political organisations. They still do, however, generate a measurable amount of income, and they still are perhaps "owned". Now, no matter what precisely they do with this income, for all I care they could set it all ablaze. That does not change their social nature, just as it would not make a difference if a shopkeeper were to throw his profit down a well as far as his class nature is concerned. It might sound silly that radical organisations are nothing more than business schemes, and it does, I'm not trying to say that. Some - most of their leadership is compromised of honest people. But that doesn't make a difference, it is possible, after all, to be unintentionally petite bourgeois.

-

Maybe this is not getting off track after all - Historically revolutionary parties collected membership dues as a result of their clear existence as forces of class struggle, and now, we are told that the emergence of (said organisation) to be a force of class struggle will be a consequence of collecting membership dues. Is the difference not clear?

-

Links, honest question: Are you reading my posts or skimming through them and attacking phrases, rather than the argument as a whole of which it is apart of? You're taking things out of context.

No, the entirety of your argument is based on this idea that political irrelevancy, itself arising from, to quote you:

...which is problematic on so many levels, the most important of them being the silly, groundless analogy this is based on ("...as the petite bourgeois does").

Here you're comparing a political organization with a social class. That alone should make you pause and examine your thoughts more closely, but that won't happen, will it?

LinksRadikal

Links, I agree completely that this would be wholly ridiculous. Political organizations are not social classes, they represent the interests of a class (even if their members are not composed of that class). To identify political organizations in terms of their relationship to the mode of production, as directly economic is nothing more than confused. There's absolutely no doubt about that.

258

So, this would lead us to either two conclusions - When we say that a great majority of the Left today is compromised of petite-bourgeois organizations. The first one, would be that they represent the interests of the petite bourgeois class as a whole. This is not what I am trying to say.

The second conclusion - the one I thought would be obvious - is that they are not political organizations at all. Oh how outrageous this really does sound, considering their vigorously sectarian nature and apparent obsession with politics, nay? Well undoubtedly, it would be ridiculous to say that these groups are not familiar with politics, or have nothing to do with it. But they aren't political organizations, if we define politics as expression of power by different interests. These organizations represent no specific class interest. Because they are not political, they then possess a specific social relationship to capitalist production - despite their irrelevancy and impotence (that leads you to say "they have no place in the social order"). This places them closer to the petite-bourgeoisie.

Now I'm trying to respond to your arguments accordingly, so don't assume that this is all I have to say and respond, as a matter of fact, don't click the quote button until you have read my entire fucking post.

I'll give you a clue: to label them as petite bourgeois is beyond lazy thinking and phrase mongering. It's mere bullshit.

They don't have any place really, and that's what seems so unimaginable to you.

Well, if you consider the ideas put forward, then yes these orgs place themselves in outright opposition to it all

LinksRadikal

I'll give you a fucking clue, you dolt, arriving at conclusions about my posts because of the connotations surrounding 'petite bourgeois' as a derogatory term among the left is beyond fucking lazy

. It's so cute to see you accuse me of laziness, and yet you're literally talking with your ass. It's not that you're close minded, it's that you literally fail to understand what I'm saying because you associate what I am saying with arguments, positions, whatever that you have seen before. I assure you here, I am wholly unique.

You're not a stupid person. Well, you might be, but you're not terribly stupid. You are capable of understanding what I'm trying to say with the knowledge that you have about the subject at hand. Of this I have no doubt. How do I arrive at this

259

conclusion?

You said this: Well, if you consider the ideas put forward, then yes these orgs place themselves in outright opposition to it all

You managed to sum up exactly what I was trying to say, in a way that is more clear and precise. This is beyond ironic. Freudian slip? This is exactly what I mean when I say they do not operate from the current circumstances of life - they do simply stand in opposition to it all but they are not a manifestation of the interests of a class which is part of it all. The embryo of Communism is within capitalism...

In other words:

the conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence

Marx

They do not result from the premises now within existence, but links, you sorry bastard, was Marx trying to say that the movement would otherwise inhabit a spiritual kind of dimension? Why the fuck would you say that? Maybe you're actually stupid, after all.

I'm not trying to confuse anyone. There's no reason to make these obscene twists about my posts, sometimes, I say things that could otherwise be said simply and plainly - the words often escape me. However, you all should know very well that I wouldn't, for example argue something as stupid as:

mean that the folks from ICC inhabit a different dimension, a spiritual kind of a dimension

LinksRadikal

Whether you're dishonest, or really just incapable of adequately responding to me, I don't know. I don't care either, go fuck yourself.

So let's ask this very straightforward question: what constitutes their social nature?

Is it class composition? Nowhere at all did you even bother to mention it. So, it can't be it.

Is it the direction and the ideological content of their ridiculously limited activity? Can't be it either cause as far as I know, such groups are the last to really pander to the petite bourgeoisie (mostly speaking about the ICC here). It's not that, far from it.

LinksRadikal

Their social nature is constituted by their social relationship to production. No matter how insignificant, no matter how little they impact the social order of things, this does not change their social nature. Are they relevant enough to actually represent the interests of the petite bourgeoisie? Of course they are not.

260

They are petite bourgeois insofar as they exist as anti-political organizations. Lenin has a special term that might be relevant - the declassed petty bourgeoisie.

Keep in mind I mean their social nature as organizations, not their class composition. The Nazi party, for example, was primarily composed of workers. This does not mean they were proletarian in nature (I'm not arriving at the same conclusions here - I'm just saying class composition has little to do with anything - it is a confused analogy no doubt). But this isn't what we're arguing about.

Think, for example, of an business dedicated to creating historical re-enactments that charges a modest fee to participate, like American civil war battles. Sure it's membership might be constituted of proletarians, or may be not. But the organization as a whole, represents a specifically characterized relationship to the order of things, no matter how minuscule or irrelevant. I've already established that they do not 'pander' to the petite bourgeoisie and do not politically represent the petite bourgeoisie as a class. The point, Links, is that they are not political to begin with in any meaningful sense - their politics has no place in current conditions - it may very well be role-play.

and you might as well apply this to yourself, you as well stand outside this field as a spectator...so what should we make out of this, that you're almost reactionary? Or is it that this high minded reasoning is only applied to organizations and not enlightened individuals?)

LinksRadikal

Well, if someone were to characterize myself as a political organization, that surely would be ridiculous. It's funny how you attack everything without context - these are not definitive arguments, they are factors which contribute to the greater argument. I surely do not posses petite-bourgeois consciousness, as these organizations do. And before you accuse me of contradicting myself, I am not. They oppose or are withdrawn from the struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie as pseudo-political organizations.

Anyway, as you can see nothing here was based on taking stuff out of context.

LinksRadikal

This is nothing short of a lie.

Oh it doesn't seem silly at all and some of them are really such things. Remember the US SEP? Oh yeah. But you can't lump in indiscriminately every political rump here.

If you're really making the case that such formations run businesses which turn a profit, then sorry but I could not really gather that from either reading the post I responded to (nothing about that), or almost the whole post I'm responding to know except this final paragraph. But then you could've made all of this fucking mess into one paragraph saying "look David North".

261

From what I gathered about and through the interaction with the ICC whom you've included here, it makes no sense to level such an accusation really.

LinksRadikal

Here's especially where I want Devrim to look.

I'm not trying to say that. Some - most of their leadership is compromised of honest people. But that doesn't make a difference, it is possible, after all, to be unintentionally petite bourgeois

Rafiq

I literally said exactly this. Somehow, however, I expect everything of meaning and substance in this argument will be lost in the abyss of Link's interpretations, and all that will live on about my arguments is only and exactly what he wants to address and make of them. Whatever. As I've said before, they are there, everyone can see them and properly understand them.

Actually wait

You started talking about them 'being petite-bourgeois in the social nature', and now you have realised that this wont fly, you seem to have ended up talking about their organisational nature, and their financial activity.

Devrim

How are these things independent of each other. Their "financial activity" has everything to do with their social nature as organizations. How can an accusation of their social relationship be established without taking all of those things into account? I'm not "all over the place", I'm explaining myself.

I have held the same position throughout this thread, that I have always held. You don't see that, then go fuck yourself.

-

You can go ahead and be content in delusional superiority in organizations like the ICC, the old Left has no place in the future of Communism. The movement of the damned - the heirs to the legacy of the revolutionary proletariat will establish a real superiority - legitimacy through conquest and blood. In no more than weeks of their ascension, they will already have triumphed you in every meaningful way - through arising out of today's conditions solely. It is one thing to be content within your own pathetic intellectual conditions and terms - and another to be historically content.

-

People don't respond to my posts. They deliberately try to argue with them for the sake of arguing. This mentality of arguing because you have some kind of

262

predisposition towards me completely skews and destroys any meaningful understanding of my posts. It's not that they are misinterpreting directly on purpose, but that they are scanning my posts vigorously and aggressively and trying to discredit them instead of trying to understand them patiently and calmly - for whatever fucking reason . How do I know this? Because there are users here who have in the past understood my posts well for what they were - even in the midst of users like Linksradikal misunderstanding them. Why are their interpretations wrong, and not Links's? I'm not going to like anyone who disagrees with me by default, that is a given. What I don't appreciate is being patronized and accused of holding positions I do not hold, of saying or meaning things I never meant. Argue with me, by all means, but understand my argument first. I will never be able to phrase anything to everyone's satisfaction because again - some have negative predispositions toward my posts - and then others will flock based on how they painted my post. It's straw man at it's purest.

My argument is that these organizations are distinctively (among previous political organizations) petite bourgeois. There is no misinterpretation there. The problem is what this actually means to everyone here.

-

I don't know if I've yet made this clear either, but this is not an argument for spontaneity - I firmly hold that the revolutionary proletariat cannot exist without a strong, disciplined political party compromised of specialized Marxists and revolutionary intellectuals to direct it. This I have always held. The point, is that this arises from the premises now in existence, I cannot but stress the importance to re-conceptualize on every level how the Left will conduct itself.

-

Well synthesis, as it turns out, this is exactly the case.

Rafiq, why is Die Linke or SYRIZA or SPUSA the enemy? Why aren't they "distinctively petty-bourgeoisie" (of course, assuming that pb is to you what the word "fascist" means to the typical leftist - anything you don't like).

Remus Bleys

The SPUSA - at least the Detroit section is petite bourgeois. A lot of what I say now comes from my experience with them. This is a problem with the Left in general. What makes them unique is that they are allegedly multi-tendency, like this website. However this is far from the case in practice. There's a lot of scum here, Remus, and yet you're still here.

263

Nothing is ever so rigidly characterized. Do I think there are real factors which make pathologically many Left organizations petite bourgeois in their social nature? Yes. Does this affect their positions and their attitude towards the current state of things. Absolutely. Whichever came first, varies based on different circumstances.

As for Die Linke and Syriza - they are two different parties. Die Linke may be many things, but it is a political party. Not because it participates in elections, but because it is able to form real political positions that encompass all social and cultural issues in modern capitalism. This is something I believe to be significant as far as the Left goes.

Syriza right now is a bourgeois party, of that there can be no doubt. However as I have said before they potentially lay the foundations for a real proletarian party. But Syriza is also a political party whose positions, no matter how immature, soft - are again formed as a result of the current conditions of life. Don't you dare accuse me of apologia.

You all have to make up your mind. First, I am this bloodthirsty madman who at every instance wants an excuse to call for the mass murder of others, and now, I am an apologist for Die Linke and Syriza - organizations you would expect I would wholly denounce and damn to the fires of the revolution, because I have a violence fetish. And why do I spare them as such when I am so keen to denounce others? This is what you must ask yourselves.

-

And for the record, I don't mean to say every fucking Left organization is the enemy, merely that they are not the solution. Some lonely delusional Trots or pompous Left Communists are hardly worthy of such divine wrath - poor sods, the lot of them.

-

after I've in great detail attempted to summarize why they are petite bourgeois, this is what I am met with?

E tu, Remus?

-

264

I'm not unique. All of my positions have come from understanding that of others - nothing is unique to myself solely. I am just as much a plain bastard as any man, I have never thought otherwise. But the allegation that these organizations are petite bourgeois - in the manner that I am arguing they are, is unique in that it is not an argument you can address based on presumptions you have from addressing other arguments.

It's so frustrating. I already stated they do not represent any class interest, because that would make them political, which I have said they are not. In practice and in principle they are anti-political, because they, as you have said, oppose it all. What Marx was trying to say when he said that the movement derives from premises now in existence was not that the movement addressed real, current issues. All movements do. But that they are a *result* of premises now in existence, or the contradictions of capitalism. There is a huge difference, and overlooking it is beyond lazy. Really your anti-philosophy stance has rendered you to the point of ridiculous.

As for Lenin, he EXPLICITLY stressed that the proletariat without direction from the revolutionary intelligentsia subordinates itself toward the bourgeoisie. He is not speaking about the class composition of left communists in his text, but the class nature of their views. I highly recommend you read it, now that you mention it. It's so ignorant (and this is a word I try to avoid, but I can't) - for you to say this refers to criticizing Russian communists based on their class composition. As if Lenin was ever a proletarian.

-

The book is Lenins polemic against Left Communism, https://www.marxists.org/archive/len...918/may/09.htm

Read it.

It's almost laughable to say that this isn't relevant. What the fuck are you talking about? This has nothing to do with their class composition. The fucking title itself reads "and the petty bourgeois *mentality*".

They are not political in nature, and 'theoretically', if we can call it that, are anti- political, the social force for which their views, positions can be validated, and

265

utilized does not exist (anymore) they thus are incapable of forming political positions - and can only oppose politics as a whole. The ICC has produced some good articles, the problem is not so much of what they oppose (when they criticize others), but their affirmative positions, in other words their abstract, meaningless solutions (Like: the only solution is that which is beyond today's context). This is a left communist problem in general.

-

Perhaps owning businesses or opening communist businesses sirz345

If the proletariat were simply able to, by their own will start up businesses they would not exist as a class. Furthermore this is simply asking for the mass subversion of communist organizations into petite bourgeois ideology. Though I suspect this is already the case for many.

Re: Arming the Kurds: Bad Idea?

Even if the Iranian - Syrian bloc comes out victorious what we should expect is a fundamental change in standards. Both of these countries, having changed their standards of their enemy will naturally give "concessions" - what we can expect is the astronomical increase in religiosity for even the secular Ba'ath state. If anything, Saddam has proven this to be very possible. ISIS is a victory for Islamism with or without a long-term victory. They have put new cards on the table which evidently Liberalism is unable to properly confront. They even admit this - Nigel Farage, a reactionary politician said, to paraphrase that British soldiers will not win fighting against Islamic fundamentalism (this has largely been the consensus of European pro-russia neofascism). So if those in power are openly conceding that they cannot fight Islamism - the implications are clear. Only Communism can save anything that is worth saving about Liberalism.

266

The kurds are relatively progressive and are not likely to succumb to Islamism - however they remain fervently nationalist with absolutely no potential of universalizing their standards on, for example women in Arab countries like Iraq. I think that we have yet again reached another deadlock where I say very soberly that Communism is the only real weapon that can bury the facade of Islamic revival in the dustbin of history - just as it was the only weapon against the facade of 'national revivals' like Italian and German fascism in their strive to return to the glory days of the Roman Empire.

It is fashionable to go around and call everything Fascist but ISIS is a dead ringer. The Taliban in Afghanistan simply organized and re-asserted the rule of landowners, but ISIS is not a modest national party. ISIS proclaims to have long- term and very over-reaching ambitions that make them especially different from something like the Taliban. Furthermore they are not transforming anything on an economic level and are presiding over areas which were relatively developed. ISIS is the most pure modern emulation of Fascism, the facade of national revival (With Islam perceived as its own nation or 'umma'), this faux grand spectacle of world change like the thousand year Reich, mass mobilization, and so on. It's surprising that no one can see this. ISIS looks a lot more like European Fascism than any caliphate in history, that is for sure - this is evidence that they DO have a place within the global paradigm of capital, or at least their ideology does.

-

What people do not realize is that despite this grand spectacle ISIS is not changing anything about the fundamental social foundations of life. No return to the social period which the previous Caliphates presided over - they claim that their ideology is perfectly capable of presiding over life as it exists today. This makes them distinctly fascist.

-

Oh my god thank you for writing this. IS-Islamism does indeed resemble fascism in some characteristics, for example the fusion of feudal and capitalist concepts, radical antimodernism and some sort of Naziesque collectivism (the Ummah - the Volksgemeinschaft).

BIAZED

And quite honestly it's something we shouldn't trivialize either. IS might fall tomorrow but the underlying tendencies and the ideology will remain alive and well. Especially in this character - just think of the notion that everything, the past

267

two hundred years from the French revolution to now has all been a sham, that the whole modern experience is one big rotten apple in history. As Communists today, I think if there is anything that should summarize our immediate position - it is the defense of modernity against both the reactionaries and postmodernists. A fundamental principle in Communism is that the legacy of the modern era, despite everything, despite all the disasters and horrors is still worth fighting for as claimants to modern history.

-

The dichotomy between oppressor nations, and oppressed nations is wholly unscientific and only reinforces the legitimacy of national identity and consciousness - especially in instances where nations do not constitute an actual social class.

-

Im not pro islamism, im simply stating that it's wholly different from fascism. Islamism wouldnt exist if the ottoman empire wasnt carved up between european powers. If national self determination has been observed for the past hundred years, people in these regions wouldnt be attracted to HAMAS nor the muslim brotherhood, nor the Ayatollah.

Fascism is unique to conditions in advanced capitalist countries. They claim that their modern nation state I.e. the US is under attack from the oppressed minorities of which its wealth is dependent on. That is different from Islamism, which is an anti western, petit bourfeois ideology.

Geiseric

How then, do you explain the fact that Islamism was a regression from left wing secularism? Your argument would have more holding if Islamism was a direct response to imperialism. But the first manifestation of political Islam after the first world war was the Muslim brotherhood who were notorious for being agents of British imperialism. All other anti colonial movements after that were secular and Left Wing in character, with some exceptions, like Ben Bella's FLN espoused some Islamic rhetoric but hardly on the scale of HAMAS (really it just tied in with nationalist sentiment). Or take places like Iran, where the country was on the verge of an actual Communist takeover twice. The second time, the Islamist "anti imperialists" executed at least ten thousand communists.

I think people tend to overlook the fact that many Arab countries, their urban environments at least, were relatively westernized and secular. Religion wasn't nearly as much of a big deal as it is now. Talk to the grandparents of any middle easterner and they'll tell you.

268

-

Also I think it also has anti-racist and internationalist beliefs when it comes to fellow Muslims(could be wrong on that), whereas fascism is ultra-nationalist

John Brown

Nationalism is a sham technically speaking - something like a nation is not necessarily dependent on ethnicity. Rather, Islamists construct an entirely new nation, an 'umma' of which all Muslims are a part of. In that sense Islamism is fervently nationalist, all the characteristics of nationalism are there: A homogeneous Muslim culture, identity, of which all who are excluded are foreign and alien.

This shit makes me very sad

.

John Brown

If you have any further interests there is a useful wikipedia article on the subject which can further provide you links to other works pertaining to the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_revival

Of the bourgeois reactionary ideologues one of the main premises is that Islam goes through revivals cyclically: This legitimizes the Islamic revival in the 1970's by tracing it back to comparable trends throughout the past one thousand years. It is completely bunk. The religious revival in the Middle East possess absolutely no national, political or social lineage to the "Muslim revivals' of the middle ages. Just a historical coincidence.

-

And that this impetus simply rises due to reactionary members of the oppressed nationalities?

Geiseric

First, let me make something clear: Most Americans might identify as religious, but this is nowhere near the magnitude of the Islamic revival in the Middle East. Even then, I agree: as a result of the developments of neoliberlaism there has been a general religious revival: Including a Christian religious revival (moral majority, etc.). It's intensity, though, has not reached the levels of that in the Middle East. And why? The Christian revival perfectly reproduced their condition, while the Islamic religious revival demanded fundamental political implications.

Second, you are wrong again. The fiefs established were not necessarily predisposed to conflict, but their political structure. For example, the French constitution for the new Lebanese government laid the basis for the future

269

exemplification of ethnic and religious tensions. But after the takeover of Nasserism and Ba'ath ideology this was rendered obsolete. Actually what was likely to have occurred was the UAR, or the United Arab Republic including Egypt, Syria and Iraq. It was political differences and rivalry that made this impossible, not imperialist meddling.

I think my point is that anti-imperialism or the "rise of the oppressed peoples" (which by the way is explicitly anti-scientific, to talk of "oppressed nations") already took the character of modernized, secular Left Wing movements.

You posit that the rise of Islamism is an expression of the "oppressed" peoples of the Middle East: Tell me then why there is recorded historical evidence that puts Saudi Arabia largely responsible, with the development of Islamism as an intentional development fostered to suppress the influence of Marxism Leninism and Arab Nationalism. The Saudi Arabian state, in it's own words, encouraged the development of Islamism as an alternative to modern secularism. Of course there are a number of other complicated historical factors: But to say that it was some kind of organic expression of 'oppressed national consciousness' is vulgar and obscene. Islamism rose as a response to radical bourgeois liberalism in the Middle East. Even Iranian Islamism, which is distinct from other Islamist trends, rose as a response to Iranian Communism. But of course, I'm sure in the eyes of some westerners, it's easier to see Arabs as a bunch of barbarians who only know how to express their dissatisfaction with Imperialism through "what they know" which is Islamism. Except this would be a completely ignorant and historically baseless assessment.

-

It's not like when Arab countires were westernized and secular, they were "oppressed by imperialists". On the contrary, westernization and modernization occurred in the most "Anti-Imperialist" states like Egypt and Syria. The vestiges of backwardness were backed by the same Imperialist powers you claim Islamism was a response to. It's not like the Arab people(s) were all oppressed with relative women's rights (by radical bourgeois standards), secularism and modernization, only to have Islamists rise, like the blue people from Avatar and "take back their home". The only exception might be Lebanon, where the Christian political factions were vehemently pro-western and not backward in the feudal sense: Even

270

then, their opponents were nationalists and Marxist-Leninists (until the rise of Islamism, of course).

-

Except that syria and egypt arent really anti imperialist, and their governments thrive on oppressing the working class. The best example of my point is Afghanistan, if you know jack about their history you would know that the taliban wouldnt exist without the US directly funding them. Also your point about Iran is wrong, seeing as the Ayatollah overthrew the Shah who was put in place by the US after Mossadegh was murdered. He (mossadegh) was Iran's first choice, but the CIA changed that and made the conditions necessary for Islamism.

Geiseric

So Islamists who at first benefited Imperialists, only to turn against them = organic response of the "oppressed" peoples against imperialism? I don't think so. How can fucking Islamists be anti-Imperialists but not the Arab nationalists of whom Imperialists found a greater threat? By the way, I don't buy into any of that shit. I think anti-imperialism could only ever be Communist, class based in character, and not national. But by your own presumptions, based on your own views.

And I said WERE anti-imperialist, that is before the rise of Islamism. Okay, let me rephrase that: They posed a strategic threat to the big bad US and its allies of whom you claim were responsible for the rise of Islamism. I agree, but not in the sense that Islamism was a "natural" response to them. When we say they helped foster Islamism, we don't mean it in the sense that "they were asking for it". We mean it in the sense that they actually helped support and fund Islamists.

-

In some cases such as HAMAS, the Syrian opposition, and the Taliban they did fund them directly at major points. There is even evidence HAMAS is funded by Qatar, a close US ally. In the case of ISIS and Khomeini, the role of imperialism was more indirect, in that the proxies set up by the US was unacceptable to the working class which lacked a Tudeh, or Iraqui labor party, to channel those tensions into a secular, socialist direction. Either way it is caused by Imperialism, as in the idea of political Islam wouldnt exist if NATO never meddled in the region.

Geiseric

Imperialism is a global system. It is a present form of global capitalism. So logically Imperialism and Islamism have something to do with each other. That isn't what we're talking about though. You said Islamism was a logical result of "oppressed" peoples fighting oppressor nations. Yet you concede that Islamism was directly prompted, at least partially, by those "oppressor nations".

271

Re: Dismissive term for anti-animal socialists needed

Via SpeciesAndClass dot com

Dismissive term for anti-animal socialists needed

By Jon Hochschartner

Vegan socialists need a dismissive term for those on the anthropocentric left. It could be used in much the same way as socialist-feminists use the portmanteaus "brocialist" and "manarchist" to undermine socialists with reactionary gender politics.

I'm awful at coining catchy, new terms, as this task requires. And I imagine that anti-speciesist socialists as whole are capable of brainstorming something much better. But as an initial suggestion, I'd like to offer the term "corpsocialist" to define those on the anti-animal left, which is obviously an amalgam of the words "corpse" and "socialist." I hope the portmanteau would bring to mind the eviscerated bodies of the countless animals whose lives and suffering most leftists ignore or minimize.

In a 2013 letter to Socialist Worker, International Socialist Organization member Benjamin Silverman claimed to have coined the term brocialist. "[It] came about some two years ago in one of my many arguments on Reddit forums, a noted Internet hive of sexism and misogyny," Silverman said. "The word 'manarchist' was becoming popular as a means to describe and call out the prevalence of sexists within the anarchist community, and I felt that there was a need for an equivalent epithet for the socialist movement. So 'brocialist' and 'brocialism' was what I came up with."

Speaking to the New Republic, progressive journalist Sarah Jaffe said brocialists reduce feminist priorities to a distraction from the class struggle. "Brocialists," Jaffe said, are "guys who are so enamored of their own radicalness or progressiveness or whateverness that they are convinced they can do no wrong.”

In an article for the New Statesmen, left-wing writer Laurie Penny engaged in a dialogue with Marxist author Richard Seymour about brocialism and manarchism.

"My experience is that ‘brocialists' don’t openly embrace patriarchy; they deny it’s a problem," Seymour said. "Or they minimise it. They direct your attention elsewhere: you should be focusing on class. You’re being divisive. You’re just middle class (quelle horreur!). Or they attack a straw ‘feminism’ that is supposedly ‘bourgeois’ and has nothing to say about class or other axes of oppression."

Penny compared the brocialist to his equivalent in the anarchist community. "The brocialist's more chaotic cousin is, of course, the manarchist, who displays many of the same traits in terms of blindness to privilege, casual sexism and

272

a refusal to acknowledge structural gender oppression, but has a slightly different reading list and a more monochrome wardrobe," Penny said.

So how might one use the term corpsocialist, or whatever term we decide will better dismiss speciesist socialists? Let me provide an example. At the 2013 Edward Said Memorial Lecture, Noam Chomsky, perhaps the most widely- respected socialist living in the United States, was asked his opinion on animal rights. While Chomsky seems to have expressed more enlightened views on the topic in the past, what he had to offer that day was particularly defensive and reactionary.

"Well, just out of curiosity, do you kill insects, like mosquitos when they're bothering you?" Chomsky asked the questioner to widespread laughter from the presumably omnivorous audience. "Or do you think when mosquitoes are carrying malaria we ought to develop means to kill them off?"

Hearing Chomsky's response, for instance, one might say, "God, for someone with vegetarian kids, he sure is a corpsocialist." Now, let's make corpsocialist happen. For a portmanteau, to quote the film "Mean Girls," it's so fetch!

Via SpeciesAndClass dot com

RosasGhost

After this, are there really people who scratch their heads wondering what exactly is wrong with the Left today? This postmodern drivel, this absolute and utter garbage. Are these rightful heirs to the legacy of the Left? Political vegans? For fuck's sake.

-

The want to hurt or kill animals is usually indicative of some sort of underlining, deeper psychological issue(s)

Василиса Прекра

That's true, but only the desire to hurt animals for the sake of hurting animals. (I'm not referring to you specifically, by the way) I find it ironic that political vegans like to fit their bullshit within proximity of some kind of naturalized, pre-Cartesian tradition, with ecology and other such reactionary postmodern drivel. The irony here is that the first identifiable human societies, hunter-gatherer societies were completely founded on the basis of big game hunting. So much so that towards the end of the last ice age the many animals that were have said to have gone extinct are speculated to have been DRIVEN to extinction by big game hunting. After the introduction of agriculture, so goes the narrative of Engels, began the foundations of class society, oppression and social hierarchy. So isn't that a bit contradictory as far as the ecological bullshit goes?

I mean, I don't know if such a narrative is correct, I am doubtful that such things did not exist before the neolithic revolution - but it's generally believed here that this was the case.

273

Re: Islamic State mass killing and enslaving

Christians and Yezidis

What is the current strategy of the United States and it's allies in confronting IS? Are they carefully watching to see what could potentially play out in weakening the Syrian state?

I mean, the US spent almost ten years in Iraq. And only in a matter of months IS manages to take a great bulk of the country? There are estimates that the current landmass they occupy is almost as big as the country of Jordan. That's certainly enough land to be legitimized as a real existing state.

Re: What is democracy?

13Only if you apply an etymological fallacy, as you do here:

13 Which is a meaningful term as much as "democratic centralism" or "anarcho-capitalism", it's a contradiction in terms.

bropasaran

274

"It would be if there were no people advocating the idea conveyed by the original and/or etymological meaning."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymological_fallacy

Tim Cornelis

I think this can be applied to a number of things reserved casually by people here.

Re: #WomenAgainstFeminism

There is no neutral, complicated obscure position you can take. You either identify with Feminism today (even if you do critically) or you oppose them. You can veil your opposition to feminism through whatever pseudo-'Socialist' drivel you want, but in the end you are still taking a position. Because unlike your bankrupt 'socialism' which has no social basis today, feminism is a real phenomena with overreaching influences, and dare I say a social base today. You can veil your cries of reaction by tarnishing banners of the old, but it is still a form of reaction. Feminism derives today as a form of mediocre class consciousness. And I mean this quite literally: The class differences among Feminists are very visible. The

275

point being is that today's feminism derives from today. You are doing no service to any form of socialist orthodoxy by opposing it, you are only presenting yourself as an (un) useful idiot to hegemonic sexual relations.

Why do I say Leninism can only possess a reactionary role today? Precisely because it operates by taking advantage of the fact that it has no social context or basis among the proletariat. By taking advantage of the fact that it did not derive from our present condition it posits itself as a force of reaction. A weak, inadequate one at that, easily swept aside by the tides of Neo Fascism and Islamism. Are there problems with Feminism? There are, but despite that it is still worth defending. Because at the end of the day when the hour of conflict is met, you have to take a side.

But then, those philistine reactionaries will say, what about war? What about our refusal to take side in wars, or petty ideological conflicts between the ruling class? On the contrary we are taking a side, feminism is above all a real social and ideological issue, just as opposition to war was. Feminism tore through false dichotomies and presented a new one.

-

Do we recognize that only through the dictatorship of the proletariat can sexual relations presently be crushed? Undoubtedly. Though, was women's suffrage then a useful struggle? Sexual freedom? Struggles pertaining to divorce laws? Abortion? The point is that our struggle, our Eden is not vested in some unforeseeable future, it is today. Our struggle derives from present circumstnaces, we must have a voice, a language within the context of today's "bourgeois society" (as petty bourgeois socialists would claim). The proletariat composes a great majority of society. Again, we do not "abstain" from it. Our Communism derives from struggling within it.

I have few qualms with a socialist criticism of feminism in its present form. My quarrel is with whether this is an opposition, that is, do you show solidarity towards feminists, do you identify with the essence of feminism or do you sit back and scold them (the difference being with other chauvinists and reactionaries that you happen to be wearing October revolution role play attire). Do you viciously attack them for not conforming to a (non-existent, mind you) socialist orthodoxy or

276

do you identify with their endeavors? Feminism is, above all, a phenomena. Not some kind of theory derived from processes of pure thought. You either oppose it, or you are with it. Language veils real positions in relation to our social, sexual and ideological being. You cannot make your real position any different through theoretical obfuscation. Deng "justified" himself, but did this make the nature of his actions any different? Kautsky "justified" himself, but did this make his actions any different?

-

Again, you seem to be using the term "feminism" in the sense of "women's liberation". Of course every actual socialist group is for women's liberation. But Marxists can't really be feminists in the sense that they can not suppose the oppression of women is the result of biological differences and transcends class society.

870

Feminism is not distinguished, or defined by asserting some kind of ecological place for women. The class differences are visible: Bourgeois feminists adhere to a pre-cartesian notion pertaining to our biology, or 'human essence'. They are fascinated by primitive matriarchal societies, women's natural place in the social order and other such drivel. Rather than being a defining characteristic of feminism, this is a threat to feminism. I have met few feminists who adhere to such drivel anyway. It is all about today, about re-defining their sexual condition today despite any drivel pertaining to biology. Actually most feminists I know regard biological differences as absolutely no basis for gender relations. As a result of their lack of knowledge, rather than any error in intention, they place this as "society does this" "society does that" rather than a disciplined Marxist understanding which connects everything into a totality. This is hardly grounds for opposing feminism. It would be just as erroneous to oppose the labor movements in the 19th century before Marxism.

But of course rather than coming to any sort of honest conclusion on your own, you are effectively apologizing for a cult. You most likely have some kind of elaborate justification for "defense of the deformed worker's state", too.

-

You mean anthropology, right? Interest in primitive cultures is not the area of biology, though the two are sure to intersect often. Bourgeois biology does not normally pay heed to any notion of human nature. Are you condemning anthropology carte blanche?

MEGAMANTROTSKY

No, as the findings are correct. I am condemning the fundamental implications drawn from them in relation to the struggle for women's emancipation today. In

277

reality it is meaningless. The struggle is not to "go back" to some kind of sexual ecology. We applaud the achievements of capitalism and of civilization. The point is to appropriate them and succeed them.

-

Which findings? Are you referring to matriarchal societies or human nature?

MEGAMANTROTSKY

On the existence of matriarchal societies.

Despite the "achievements" that women won through hard struggle and social reforms, Marxists should not one- sidedly "applaud" them. It is not to say that women do not deserve equal pay and what have you, but to recognize that these achievements are contradictory and perhaps even harmful under capitalism. To paraphrase Lenin, women are doubly burdened, with both the care of children and paid work (not to mention household work). So how exactly will Marxists win working women to socialism if we trouble ourselves to point out all the "positives" without paying heed to how they help retain class and gender oppression? It will not make for a very convincing program, in my opinion. MEGAMANTROTSKY

We aren't talking about a tactical use of propaganda in "convincing" worker's anything. What the fuck are you talking about?

No one is denying that women under capitalism are oppressed. No one is denying sexual relations as essentially a form of prolonged and legitimized slavery (under capitalism). The premises of women's liberation derive from capitalism as a pre- requisite, of today's conditions. Just as Communism derives from premises now in existence. So in retrospect to hunter-gatherer societies, or even pre-capitalist societies, yes capitalism is infinitely more progressive. Hunter gatherer societies existed for some two hundred thousand years (could be wrong) and essentially didn't do shit. Their inability to improve their condition actually led to agriculture.

Women don't need to be legitimized by some kind of pre-cartesian tradition of societies in which women had a distinct "place" (Be it matriarchal, or otherwise). Women's liberation doesn't need to be legitimized by some transhistorical notion of our "nature" or by some social ecology bullshit.

278

Re: Advocating matriarchy?

Would it be unfeminist to advocate matriarchy? To say that women generally have better qualities then man and that we should have a system where women decide about stuff?

bropasaran

Unfeminist or not, what we do know is that it is wrong. There are no biological predispositions for either sex to have "better qualities" with very few exceptions. Neurologically there have been studies that confirm both of our brains are almost completely identical and that most chemical differences are socially derived.

-

According to Origins of the Family, matriarchy or "Mother-Right" is the natural state of affairs,

Deep Sea

This is exactly what I was talking about in a previous thread. This is not what Engels implied. What Engels implied was that societies were largely matriarchal before the neolithic revolution. That does not mean we ought to seek a return, or that it is our "natural" state.

Rather than being feminist this is completely reactionary and anti-feminist. It tells us that Women's liberation has to be legitimized by nature, or cosmic harmony, or some kind of genetic structure, lineage to something, our "roots". Not only is this

279

completely anti-feminist and not only does it reproduce the same presumptions that ideologically render women oppressed and enslaved, it is wholly anti-Communist and dare I say anti-enlightenment.

It coincides perfectly with all the new age post modern shit brought forth following the collapse of the Left.

-

I would say, living more like an animal would.

Deep Sea

We broke from any kind of "animal state" through the first revolution, the abolishment of the alpha male cycle. Animal state implies an infinite and adaptive relationship to your environment.

Re: Objective Interest

People on this board often talk about the objective interest of the working class, and how workers would be objectively better off under communism, but how can this be if interest is inherently subjective? Obviously this raises questions about the nature of concepts like class interest and false consciousness.

Any thoughts?

Rugged Collectivist

It is not as though class interest lurks within the hearts of workers, subconsciously or otherwise and simply has to be "brought out". Communism formed as a result of the class interests of proletarians. Not the other way around. I think it is important, however, to recognize that yes as a social class the proletariat is capable of acting as a class without thorough theoretical depth. The problem is that this usually does not last very long without a general theoretical discipline.

280

Re: "Meet ISIS's worst nightmare"

Technically, the PKK does not operate in Iran. That's the PJAK.

Anti-imperialism without anticapitalism is not anti-imperialism. The Islamic State is not anti-imperialist.

Tim Cornelis

Also anti Imperialism can only be fought by a global class conscious proletariat. Take countries like Vietnam: they're one of the largest manufacturers for US products today. What did national liberation even accomplish?

-

No left communist would oppose people defending themselves from fascists.That is not the discussion here. What people are proposing here is siding with a reactionary nationalist organisation backed by the Western powers against another reactionary organisation.

Devrim

You're missing the ideological aspect of this and it's fundamental social implications. ISIS is not simply reactionary. It is pre-modern. It is adamantly anti- enlightenment. All of the achievements of the past two centuries are rendered illegitimate and void in their universe. I don't have qualms with criticizing or denouncing the PKK. But it's ridiculous to compare them to ISIS.

-

So what are you suggesting? Is it that people support the Kurds and the Western powers against them?

Devrim

I don't know what you mean by support. The Kurds and western powers are going to fight ISIS with or without our support. If they relied on Leftists for making their decisions the situation would be very different. If it is a given that they will engage ISIS, then the question is whether we oppose such acts. I can't honestly say I would oppose Kurdish endeavours against the Islamists, indiscriminate of who is supporting them. I mean, it's easy to say. But would you REALLY be able to condemn a Kurdish offensive against ISIS? There are things that play out that are in our favor strategically. This doesn't warrant support, or opposition. What does

281

the proletariat have to lose from the destruction of ISIS? The reinforcement of capitalism? The same capitalism which Communism is derived from, the same Liberalism without which there is no (ideological) basis for Communism to exist? -

Well, that's a bit simplistic since Islam had no equivalent of the Enlightenment. Many Islamists would perceive the things that we associate with reaction to be part of their enlightened period, as shown with all this rhetoric about the Caliphate and the scientific and cultural achievements under it.

Alexios

Try again.

The enlightenment wasn't exclusive to Europe. There were intellectual movements derived from enlightenment in the middle east too. it wasn't a different world. Even arab nationalism is very enlightenment based. And nobody gives a flying fuck about the "scientific acheivments of the caliphate" as though it is fresh in their minds. They have nothing to do with it, I doubt most of these rural people know anything about that. People who support them are Sunnis dissatisfied with the Iraqi and Syrian government. There are also an overwhelmingly huge number of Islamist from Europe (who have FUCK ALL to do with any previous caliphate).

There is no "Muslim world". Sure there are vast cultural differences but these were countries colonized by European powers, who therefore were exposed to the enlightenment (not to apologize for colonialism, but they didn't live on another planet). To suggest that the Islamist reaction is somehow perceived to be "their enlightenment" is completely ridiculous. What is more viable is a renaissance comparison, which is still stupid given that there is 1) no social basis for anything similar to that 2) absolutely no correspondence with a robust progressive change in arts, politics and the intellectual sphere. Christ this kind of relativism is disgusting. It's not that "they're different". The Islamists represent the same reaction that gave us Russian anti Semitic conspiracy theories, European neofascism, and a growth in American libertarianism/militia movement. The order of capital has long been universal.

-

Again, if our standards are not universal they do not exist at all.

-

What makes you think that the Enlightenment was an actual 'real' thing? Second, surely if 'it' was 'real' then surely 'it' is not an 'it', but in fact a conglomeration of numerous different distinct and in many ways independent intellectual bodies. Third, if we are to assume that the Enlightenment was 'real', then why can it not pertain largely to Western Europe and North America? If it did really exist, which I'm less than convinced by, then it was the product of communication. The construction of the "Atlantic World", a massive communication network, explains why "the

282

Enlightenment" was centred around the Atlantic periphery. That said, the whole notion strikes me as bollocks.

Invader Zim

Firstly it is inarguable that there was an identifiable and abrupt (compared to previous developments of thought) change in ideology, thought, arts politics and so on that coincided with the bourgeoisie's desire for political power. The transformation of society's superstructure almost completely. This is called the enlightenment.

Secondly, it was a worldly phenomena because capitalism is worldly. It's effects reached the near east and to suggest that they need "their own" enlightenment or anything of semblance is nonsense. They are not a separate universe. We are talking about world history here. Of course it originated and therefore pertained mostly to the west. But it spread through the introduction of capitalist production. It's even more ludicrous, disgusting even to suggest Islamism exists because of some world historical problem, that muslims didn't have their own enlightenment, or that this is the form it is taken. You fail to recognize Islamism as an IMMEDIATE phenomena of capital, just as those vulgar historians categorize it with some kind of transhistorical "cycle" of Islamic revival. This is a problem of today, of today's conditions, not some long overdue event. Anyone who suggests otherwise has absolutely zero experience in engaging the "Muslim world" and don't know what the fuck they're taking about.

-

Don't be ridiculous. The late 17th century signified the sophistication of bourgeois political consciousness as well as the foundations of bourgeois-liberal ideology itself. This logically made possible the age of revolutions (which didn't come out of nowhere). The "scientific, technological, intellectual, and cultural developments" were completely bourgeois in nature and were a result of the necessitated acquisition of the superstructure. The age of revolutions, after all, primarily represented the appropriation of political power.

When I say capitalism is wordily, I don't mean the whole fucking world was capitalist. I mean everything that is in the sphere of influence with the west, from trading empires to colonies, formed a component of the world totality. By the early 20th century urban cities in the Middle East were fairly westernized culturally, and this had fuck all to do with protestant missionaries. In universities, the intellectual apparatus was completely modernized and worked from the achievements of

283

bourgeois ideology and the enlightenment. Intellectual, cultural, scientific and technological achievements do not exist exclusively in that which they originate from. Most of the world included in the capitalist totality (Which excludes isolated countries or remote tribes) will experience them, too, or recognize them as hegemonic and adopt them.

Though this is not unique to the Middle East. Most semi-feudal countries were very similar. Urban cities were very different than rural areas. If Islamism represented the forced evacuation of urban cities because of a syndicate of rural classes (like Cambodia) than an argument tracing Islamism to old historical traditions would make sense. But this isn't the case, an increase in religiosity was very much felt in places a few decades earlier were largely modernized.

14Who does this? Care to name the offenders?

Invader Zim

Olivier Roy, for one. I don't talk out of my ass, Zim.

-

So, when you said that "[t]he enlightenment wasn't exclusive to Europe", you were, in fact, not talking about cross- cultural pollination resulting in the generation of a cultural, intellectual, and scientific movement - what we would normally think of as 'the Enlightenment', but about something totally different and far more contemporary: the impact of cultural imperialism on the region by the 20th century. In which case, we have no argument.

Invader Zim

Firstly, if cultural imperialism was the only explanation for the absence of something as reactionary as Islamism, then this would not account for the fact that backwardness and "non-western" trends persisted in rural areas. Islamism is significant not because it represents a real revival, or some kind of exemplification of national consciousness: It's significant because it is a political intrusion. Also, you're forgetting the fact that (while there WERE inarguably attempts at modernization in the 19th century, successful or otherwise) British and French authorities tended to be much more tolerant of reactionary, conservative elements in Near Eastern societies that were compliant with their rule. The people that were a pain in their ass were the bourgeois radicals, the westernized anti-colonialists who were more European than the Europeans (in the spirit of Hegel, if you will). The colonizer becomes the savage and the savage becomes the champion of civilization, as it goes.

14 just as those vulgar historians categorize it with some kind of transhistorical "cycle" of Islamic revival.

Rafiq

284

Secondly to say this has "nothing to do with the enlightenment" (whether modernization occurred solely in the 20th century or not, which is doubtful) is ridiculous. The enlightenment was persistent, exposure to enlightenment (and logically, post-enlightenment) ideas through universities is possible long after the enlightenment occurred (in places that were not directly exposed to it). As Marx recognized capitalist development could never have occurred through isolated national development. If we presume that these societies had a place within the global capitalist totality (by the mid 19th century, feudal areas had their place in the capitalist totality, too) then they are irrevocably a part of the world historical order, they have already stepped into "our" universe.

Back to the original point, I define the enlightenment as a radical change in the fundamental ideological foundations of society which encompassed art, politics, philosophy, and so on. The enlightenment was the full appropriation of the superstructure by the bourgeois class. It represented the very foundations by which Communism as an ideology spawned from. How exactly do you define the 'alleged' enlightenment (which leads you to oppose usage of the term)?

Re: roarmag article on the new libertarian course of the PKK

There is a difference between experimenting with different models of statehood, fulfilling your "ideals" and acting as a class.

285

Social ecology is not Communist. Social ecology is an argument: that capital is better fulfilled under these "ideal" means than hegemonic ones.

Ideology and Death

The Communist movement, most especially during the early 20th century succeeded in constructing an ideological universe in which an explanation, and understanding of our existence was all-encompassing. From the nature of power to the nature of everyday life, nothing was spared by Communism. Rather than being "totalitarian" this simply represented the magnitude by which hegemonic ideology encompassed our understanding of the world, rather than a new intrusion (which, therefore entailed those fighting against the existed hegemony would appropriate, and transform such an understanding). Even we take this for granted.

However rather than starting a discussion on the nature of ideology, what has long been over-looked by Marxists today is the absence of a socialist conception of death. This is not to be trivialized. While we understood death in scientific terms,

286

death never fit the canon of Communist ideology. Death could not be politicized or even understood ideologically (on an emotional level). Death is the paradox which remains unconquerable. No one without experience in seeing death, knowing death, could ever upon first experience fit death nearly into their paradigm of belief. For the most secular religious, upon the death of a close one a spark in religiosity is almost guaranteed. Religion, sophisticated and socially refined ideology, understands death. Bourgeois ideology leaves death to the realm of the religious, who have conquered it.

Let us not kid ourselves, even the coldest Marxists were softies at heart. They detest brutality and barbarism. They were not much different from many of ourselves here on this website, actually. Despite their vigor revolutionaries never before the seizure of power want the death and terror that will always follow. It is those who remain committed and those who abandon, that determine the strength in heart of revolutionaries. As they say, those who are not willing to go to the end with their ideas do not truly hold them. Despite what reactionary rhetoric will tell you, the Bolsheviks were not heartless monsters. Because they lacked an ideological place for death in the first place. For people in general, there is either no violence, or mass indiscriminate murder. There cannot be an in-between. Because all that is holy and good is associated with 'peace' and all that is bad with death. So logically if one can murder someone, all barriers can be broken. Rational thought (rather than ideology) will never account for this, and can not. You are safe and comfortable, and you have to cross the line into the domain of death, whereas to "value" human life is quite a difficult thing. This is why I am skeptical of the usage of PTSD in soldiers to claim humans are naturally predisposed to oppose violence: On the contrary, the problem isn't death itself. It's finding legitimacy coming back to a social order in which death is carefully refined. Upon return a soldier is overwhelmed and disgusted by the hypocrisy of bourgeois society, the abrupt differences between peace time and being in a war are too much to handle.

For Communists it was all about opposing death. While not shy of using violence, it was always about ending the miserable and wretched barbarism of the state and bourgeois society. It is as though upon engagement with death a new world is discovered which makes it difficult to control. Make no mistake, no one is arguing that mass indiscriminate murder occurred under the Bolsheviks. I would be the last

287

one to make villains of the heroic Cheka. But let's look at these interesting differences:

Bukharin noted that one of the greatest hazards for former Chekists was the development of mental disorders. Bourgeois ideologues, in all of their hypocritical sentiment would use this as testament of the "atrocities" of the Red Terror. Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't recall any Fascists developing mental disorders later in their life, and certainly they have killed far more in much more barbaric means. Certainly the counter-revolutionary white officers were not prone to mental disorders, despite the fact that there is historical data that can confirm they were infinitely more monstrous than the Bolsheviks, they were barbarians. What's my point, then? The Communists were ill-equipped because they did not conquer death before the seizure of power. Before seizing power Fascists were, to paraphrase Zizek they were 'bad men' who promised to do 'bad things' and, unsurprisingly did them. Because they (Bolsheviks) were ill-equipped it was difficult fitting the loss of life within the paradigm of Communist ideology. The ending of a life is not the problem itself, but the implications it has for the living. It was the greatest overlooked paradox of the Communist experience. And it doesn't end there. Robespierre the pacifist would later oversee the reign of terror. There is certainly something of worth to look at here.

So what is the solution? The conquest of death itself, to fit it into our ideological paradigm. The Communists of the 21st century must adopt the spirit of self- sacrifice, the mentality of conquer or perish (victory or death, if you will). Things we think are inherently fascistic, but I beg to differ. One can see the embryo of such a Communism throughout the course of the Russian civil war with Trotsky's Communism and Terror or Felix Dzerzhinsky's Communist morality. How were countless heroes of the red army able to bravely sacrifice themselves knowing full well the promise of an afterlife to be a lie? Knowing full well the finality of death, how were Communists able to die for the revolution? The problem with previous Communists wasn't that they were too loose with violence, it was that they weren't comfortable with it enough. If we truly recognize the inevitability of terror and death as a result of the seizure of power the pillars of Communism will remain unbreakable to the shock and awe of it. Many accuse me of violence-fetishism or being bloodthirsty. But in the end it is those who reject violence, to whom death is

288

an untouchable void that not only have an aversion to fundamental changes in power, they also are the most likely to be de-moralized if confronted with its necessity (I.e. If I can kill, I can rape too!). If death is fit within the paradigm of ideology, only then can it coincide with the vitality of other aspects of our ideology, universalism and emancipation. Robespierre said virtue without terror is blind, but he also said terror without virtue is fatal.

(To be absolutely clear this has very little to do with any immediate circumstances, I am not giving a call to action or anything of that sort, simply a re conceptualization of Communist ideology).

-

This post when rationally examined seems like something out of some prose art, there is no point to be indentified, no explicit views adressed or offered. Rafiq, can you explicate concrete points of what you want to say? bropasaran

This doesn't seem to be a problem for the other users in this thread.

No, it's not a sectarian polemic. This conforms to nothing except a long ignored truth. This applies to all of us. There are things of us, that cannot simply be accounted for by our explicit "views". As they say, it's like the difference between firsthand and secondhand experience. Why is it different in the first place? For that reason exactly.

289

Re: Theses on the Philosophy of History

The following is a critique of historical materialism. I'm having a hard time understanding it though, would someone mind explaining this to me? http://seansturm.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/benjamin-theses-on-the-philosophy-of-history.pdf

The Fundamental Attribution Error

If that is the bulk of his theory it is a straw man. Marxists since Lenin rejected teleology and the notion that history is linear. Two steps forward, one step back said Lenin. Lenin also claims history progresses in zigzags.15 16

15 Just as a heads up, in these Thesis, Benjamin is not attacking the materialist conception of History per se, but what was perceived as "historical materialism" (note the quotes in the first thesis), progressivism and fatalism ('the puppet called 'historical materialism' is always supposed to win'). Also, darwinist evolutionism and technical development as necessarily an achievement (see Thesis XI).

In general, it's a jab against a crude evolutionist notion of historical development. He writes in Thesis X "The consideration starts from the assumption that the stubborn faith in progress of these politicians [in whom the opponents of fascism had invested their hopes], their trust in their “mass basis” and finally their servile subordination into an uncontrollable apparatus have been three sides of the same thing. It seeks to give an idea of how dearly it will cost our accustomed concept of history, to avoid any complicity with that which these politicians continue to hold fast to." That is, the faith in progress, in the 'mass basis' and in the party "have been three sides of the same thing" (barbarism, the rise of Fascism). A new (as opposed to that faithful in progress, that has nothing to do with Marx according to Benjamin) conception of history is needed.

He saw this crude conception of unstoppable, unending progress contrary to Marx's "dialectical one." Because if humanity is progressing (and not only its 'abilities and knowledge'), how come fascism has happened? "History is the object of a construction whose place is formed not in homogenous and empty time, but in that which is fulfilled by the here-and-now" (Thesis XIV), that's why. Revolution would be the explosion of this continuous course of history (see Thesis XV, XVI, XVII).

Benjamin also attacks German Historicism and its "[e]mpathy with the victors thus comes to benefit the current rulers every time" (Thesis VII). Evidently, the author has empathy towards the exploited.

EDIT: But hey, I'm no expert in philosophy and these are quite dense...

Herr Unrat

16 Yes, but it was written against the predominant conceptions of historical materialism at the time (1940s in Germany).

Herr Unrat

290

Re: Do you hate Chuck E. Cheese?17 Here's the perfect game for you!

If you're internet savy, you already know what I'm talking about. If not....

I give you Five Nights at Freddy's.

I am not exaggerating when I say that this is the creepiest, most pants-shitting terrifying PC game released in years.

The basic premise is that you're this security guard whose been hired to work the night shift at this place called Freddy Fazbear's Pizza, which is basically an analogue to Chuck E. Cheese. You've been hired to watch this place during the night with your system of security cameras and make sure nothing unwanted gets into the store.

But that isn't what you should be worried about.

You see, like Chuck E. Cheese, this place has a group of animatronic characters that entertain the children during the day. Unlike the characters at Chuck E. Cheese, these guys seem to have a bit of artificial intelligence. Furthermore, because their servos will seize up if they lay dormant for too long, they have a tendency to roam around the restaurant at night. They are also rather....curious about things in the restaurant at night, especially things that aren't them. You do NOT want this to happen to you.

That already sounds creepy enough. What's especially freaky is the fact these things never move when you're watching them on the security monitors. Oh, you'll definitely hear them moving around, but the moment the camera focuses on them they will stand perfectly still (sort of like the weeping angels from Doctor Who). Even more unnerving that that? They have a tendency to stare directly at you through the cameras with their soulless robot eyes.

(Believe me, the first time you look at the main stage area and notice that one of the characters is missing, it produces a feeling of dread that you will never forget).

So...yeah. If you're up for a good scare, give this game a try.

Just don't expect to sleep for the next decade or so.

Brandon’s Impotent Rage

Ha! A friend showed this to me a few days back. I like it.

17 no. i love chuck e cheese's rednoise

291

Re: Anarchism, Marxism and veganism

Why is it important to politicize your dietary preferences?

-

Because the way we consume resources, treat the planet and its inhabitants, as well as the consequences of our actions as a species in regards to these things are political issues.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The Feral Underclass

There is no "planet". The planet exists insofar as it is useful to us. Whether it is useful in fulfilling some kind of degenerate sentiment (i.e. Animal rights activism) derived from giving anthropomorphic characteristics to animals, or whether it is useful insofar as it is habitable does not change this fact.

The political dimension to environmentalism is based solely on the reluctancy of capital to take into account the 'ecological' problems it has caused. That is it. It is not about whether we want to give up eating meat, or eggs, or our reluctancy to change our dietary preferences. Vegetarianism and veganism are personal issues and any attempt to politicize them could only ever take the form of a mockery of real politics.

-

18Interestingly, this is an incredibly idealist perspective.

TC

No, you're making a straw-man. This isn't a metaphysical argument. No one denies the Earth exists independent of our existence (notice how I said "planet"). That's the point. It is not as though we coexist with some entity that possesses conscious characteristics. Humans do not give a shit about the Earth, or the animals that reside in it insofar as they are not useful. History is not made by making deals with the "planet". History is made by different social bodies with different relationships to production vying for power. There is no social foundation for veganism. It is a dietary preference, it is NOT political. Animals do not possess a social relationship

18 There is no “planet”. The planet exists insofar as it is useful to us.

Rafiq

292

to production. We are not all-knowing entities solely concerned with objective reality. We are animals with different relationships to each other that pertains to our survival, reproduction, or whatever you like.

You're wrong that this question is solely a moral one. It is a fact that humans cannot think outside of the parameters of their consciousness. We might be self- conscious of our being, and we might be closer to understanding it totally but any moral (or pseudo-political) stance taken on animals, or the "planet" is wholly reflective of our own consciousness (the attribution of anthropomorphic characteristics to other things) rather than objective reality. The planet does not exist outside of its use to humans as far as our social being goes, which constitutes our living existence. Objective reality exists indiscriminate of our existence, but that does not change the fact that we exist.

This further raises the question of whether we are even capable of understanding 'objective reality' without the biases that come from our social being (therefore our ideology), a topic that has been discussed numerous times on this website. Either way, this has nothing to do with the original point at hand:

It is ridiculous to politicize your dietary preferences. No, we cannot politicize questions over the "Earth and its inhabitants" alone, it must have social relevance. Environmentalism does because it forms a contradiction between our very survival and the hunger of capital. Similarly, opposition to the first world war raised the contradiction between the needs of capital, and our livelihood as a civilization.

Now, you will say, what's the point of caring about humans who have no immediate social relevance, like Native Americans or marginalized indigenous tribes? Since ideology encompasses the entirety of the world, morality, and our understanding of humans, there is no question. We can demonstrate that Communist ideology necessarily opposes barbarism and brutality, murder and so on (as a consequence of its very foundations, it must be consistent or else it is inadequate as an ideology). We cannot demonstrate that there are any social foundations for opposition to consuming meat. Since the ENTIRE premise of such an argument (when politicized) comes from attributing animals anthropomorphic characteristics it stems from ignorance of the realities of which it pertains to. Communism, like any ideology in history, concerns humans alone. An ideology

293

does not say "I am ideology", similarly it does not say "I am solely concerned with the interests of the proletariat". It appropriates humanity as a whole and reduces humanity to the interests of the proletariat.

I don't know where the fuck you'd get that this is a metaphysical argument. That's so simplistic of you.

Why should we confine politics to your preferred list of concerns?

TC

You accuse me of idealism and yet you hold an idealist position as far as the nature of politics goes, which posits that politics is: Well, whatever the fuck we want it to be? A reflection of processes of "pure thought"? I don't think so. Politics must have a social foundation. More specifically politics concerns power among humans.

Animals are incapable of power over humans, they possess a distinct form of consciousness. If a cow was a cow, and yet possessed our consciousness this would be a different matter. But it does not. As far as we're concerned animals are nothing short of organic automations.

It's not about what I concern, it is about the nature of politics itself. We don't choose what we confine politics to willfully as though we're picking out tools from a catalog, I am not making the argument that vegan politics should not exist. I am making the argument that its existence is impossible, that it could only ever be a mockery of real politics.

You make it as though the dichotomy veganism vs. non veganism rests on an equal playing field. 'Veganism' is a pseudo-political intrusion, it is an affirmative argument. Saying that veganism has no real social foundations, and is not political is not a moral stance (conversely, trying to politicize your dietary preferences is).

Saying that we as a species are incapable of caring about the Earth insofar as it does not concern ourselves is not an opinion, it is a fact. Reactionary ecologists attribute the Earth anthropomorphic characteristics and their "concern" over the planet has nothing to do with the planet itself, but ideological realities and their implications to us as humans. Just as the religious notion of Heaven and Hell sais more about us than any metaphysical reality.

-

294

Re: How's the revolution coming? Am i late?

Howdy, I'm a Southern Slavic Marxist-Leninist-Qutbi , I'm obsessed with Lacan & have a disgusting attraction to Zizek (not proud of it, but he's from my country).

Yeaaaah... That's about it.

295

Marxist-Islamist

Now I've seen it all. An Islamist who fancies Lacan. There is no place for religion in Communism, no less politicized religion. We seek the mass execution of clergy and either burning places of worship or turning them into museums.19 Reserving private religious beliefs is one thing, but a fucking self proclaimed Islamist?

-

Presumably a follower of Sayyid Qutb's variant of Islamism, which to be perfectly honest raises some uncomfortable questions about the new posters' attitude to secularism, queer and women's liberation etc.

870

What's to ask, honestly? We already know.

-

No, I think you have Communism and being in a Scandinavian black metal band confused.

Василиса Прекра

It's not simply that we "disagree" over matters of belief. Religious institutions are instrumental in not only reproducing a social condition we oppose, they are the reactionary hounds unleashed by capital when reason alone proves to be on the side of the Communists. Religions represent the ideological apparatus of previous mode(s) of production, like feudalism. Initially bourgeois ideology was irreligious, but only formally. The hegemony of the bourgeois class was reproduced by religions in matters pertaining to private life, the family, morality and immediate existential problems, like death. The politicization of religion today represents neither the over-reaching influence of private life, or the reveal of a hidden feudal reaction. Rather it represents the utmost degeneracy of capital and bourgeois ideology. Liberalism itself and bourgeois-rationalism have become barriers capital must overcome.

So while politicized religious might pose a threat to the bourgeois-liberal apparatus, this is reactionary in nature. Fascists posed the same threat, too.

Re: The Pope calls a capitalism a "new tyranny".

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/26/pope-francis-capitalism-tyranny http://rt.com/news/pope-francis-capitalism-tyranny-324/

19 What the fuck?

RedWorker

296

I don't like Catholic Church, but I'm starting it like this man very much.

And now each of catholics priests must be against capitalism. How nice. :P tuwix

The church, one of the last reactionary opponents of capitalism in Europe.

-

The Catholic Church is no more an opponent of capitalism as the Green Party.

The Feral Underclass

No, the Green Party isn't reactionary. To be a reactionary and oppose capitalism is to oppose capitalism from the standpoint of the feudal ruling classes

-

But the catholic church doesn't do that anymore. They're regular social democrats whose rhetoric is petty bourgeoisie oriented.

The green party is reactionary. They uphold capitalism.

Also, don't you think St. Paul was a bourgeois revolutionary?

Remus Bleys

When the catholic church spews of capitalisms evils, they are not criticizing capitalism but finance capitalism and the "social decadence" it has brought, like the fascists a hundred years ago or islamists today. The bourgeoisie didn't exist until some five hundred years ago.

-

He might oppose capitalism, but as a reactionary. Hitler and Mussolini spoke ill of "capitalism" too.

Re: Dawkins and a "bizarre twitter storm"

Dawkins at it again...

For your comments. Please be very logic and do not misunderstand this as having any connection to, er, opinions on rape or pedophilia.

Luís Henrique

It is inarguable that Dawkin's drivel is wholly tied to an argument which started on the potency of relativism as far as opposing such phenomena - without a god, without consciousness as being responsible for the entirety of existence morality is

297

"impossible". Dawkins responds by assuming some sort of weak form of relativism instead of explaining the ORIGINS of morality itself as having a social function - likewise the notion of a god itself having a social function.

New Atheism (as opposed to old atheism) can be characterized by its ideological weakness. They are correct in recognizing that there has been a reactionary revival in religious sentiments, which is anti-enlightenment based in nature - but without materialism there can be no true atheism, it's for that reason that even the most adamant of bourgeois revolutionaries could only ever be deists. By relying parasitically upon the universe of the ideological state apparatus, upon the hegemonic ideological order, New Atheism could only ever be a form of apologia - apologia for atheism itself.

It is not through logic and reason that we exist without a god no one can be beyond ideology, no one can solely think on the basis of "logic and reason", what is "logical" and what is not is a matter of 'debate' - indeed the gods of the old order will be replaced by the gods of the new - Communism derives legitimacy from the gods of the sciences, we are knighted - we are legitimized by the very same altars 'logic and reason' that sustain the existing order just as the bourgeois revolutionaries were knighted by the same holiness that sustained the previous one - the supreme being. We must mercilessly crush the foundations by which such a dichotomy between "faith" and "reason" is made, we must rip the veil that crowns religion and reduce it as a social product - by which the real domain of belief would then reside in the fields of class struggle itself. At that point we say rape is detestable because it re-asserts the barbarity of existing sexual relations and female sexual slavery, instead we say rape is bad because it serves the existing order and the class enemy, instead we say rape is bad because it is the rallying cry of all that which stands in the way of the emancipation of women. -

In which case, they are a very different kind of atheist than me or you. Because we both have a concept of god; we have rejected it, and call ourselves "atheists" because of that.

Atheism isn't a position of greater ignorance.

Luís Henrique

The notion of a god, however, is imposed.

298

Re: Hegelian Marxism?

What is Hegelian Marxism?

Socialisme ou Barbarie

I believe it refers to a camp of Marxist intellectuals who see Hegel beyond Marx's criticism of him (therefore able to form a better understanding of Marx). They see Marx as a category of Hegel.

Marxism, however, is already Hegelian in nature. This is inarguable.

-

What does it even mean to "see Hegel beyond Marx's criticism of him"

LinksRadikal

It means to take Hegel as seriously as Marx did in his youth and re-trace Marx's steps. Not simply blindly accepting Marx's criticism as Hegel as the only thing Hegel has to offer us. We have to understand why. There are things about Hegel that Marx took as a given to his grave, that he did not thouroughly discuss because it was the standard for his given time period. Fuck, how do I re-phrase that?

Marx developed his theories, his criticism of Hegel based on an intellectual- historical circumstance that is completely different from our own. A different

299

context of debate, if you will. It is like the modern Left: All they remember about Kautsky was that he was a renegade, and blah blah blah. They're ignorant and they have forgotten the very foundations of Bolshevism and the Bolshevik method, which is rooted in Kautsky.

Simalarly the foundations of Marxism, the basic logical presumptions are Hegelian. This is inarguable. Any association of Hegelianism with "teleology" is a blantantly ignorant misunderstanding of Hegel's understanding of history. Rather than claiming all history is leading up to a final moment, the point of Hegel's understanding of history is that this final movement is perceived only in the moment we are in.

Which is why other than the Young Hegelians you had the Right Hegelians, who interpreted this as saying history has already perfected itself in their present moment and that all there is to do is conserve the existing order. Marx was the true disciple of Hegel, even if it meant breaking with him.

and especially to "see Marx as a category of Hegel"? Does the latter amount to seeing the materialist conception of history as a category of absolute idealism?

LinksRadikal

Frankly this is detestable. It is disgustingly ignorant to claim (or maybe I just find it sickening that the forum's philstines, like 870 thank your post) that Hegel as a philosopher was simply distinguished by his Idealism. Marx turned Hegel's method in its head, but it was still Hegel's method. Idealism had existed long before Hegel, so the question resides: What distinguished Hegel from the others? That which distinguishes it, is found in the core of Marxism. It's not simply Hegel's dialectic method. It's things like totality, things like different ways to define history. For Marx history isn't rooted in simply what happened yesterday, it is completely transformative events that set new constrains for development. The difference was that Hegel rooted this in the development of ideas, and Marx rooted in social revolutions based on class warfare, of which ideas were a product of. It's still Hegelian. The skeleton of such a formulation didn't exist before Hegel.

It's things like this which are taken for granted by Marxists today, more disappointingly often stomped upon, unintentionally forgotten or overlooked.

And I would very much appreciate an elaboration of just how Marxism is already Hegelian "in nature".

LinksRadikal

I find such a reaction to the post odd. Don't act like you don't know what I mean by

300

"in nature". Why do people tend to focus on the most worthless, trivial aspects of my posts? I could have said "Hegelian in character" or "Hegelian in stature" or "Hegelian at core". It doesn't make a difference.

Frankly I find it ridiculous to deny Marxism as Hegelian. Hegelian as in that which distinguishes Hegel from ideologues and philosophers before him (which Marx concurs with). Marx criticized Hegel from Hegel. He did not write about how Hegel's new ideas were wrong and that the old ones were right. He presumed those new ideas, took from them what needed to be taken. He refined and sophisticated them and in the process transformed them. It is still Hegelian. It is identifiably Hegelian. Hegel posited a new understanding of history, Marx didn't say that the old one was correct. He simply transformed this new understanding. It's so sad how Hegel is dismissed when there are treasures infinitely more applicable today then ever to be found in his works. Marx as a category of Hegel means Marx as a branch, an offshoot of Hegel. I find it unsurprising that those philistine Trotskyists would want to butcher Hegel from Marxism, as to complete the ritual sacrifice of all that made Marxism great, to the altars of shitty activism (Yeah, sorry, that's what it is. I don't care if they say otherwise. It's activism.) and "political" role-play.

-

Any link formed between determinism, teleology, fatalism and Hegelianism is the most infantile of misunderstandings and reflects oceans of ignorance. It is the most disappointing reading one could have of Hegel imaginable. It's like your missing so much, you're over-looking so much, it's philistinism at it's best. Frankly Hegel is not distinguished by idealism. Maybe within the framework of Marxism and Marxism only is he, but that already presumes that we accept Hegel's underlying logic and oppose his idealism. Otherwise, why do we pay so much attention to Hegel's Idealism in the first place? Why not whine about Descartes, or Spinoza, or Kant for fuck's sake?

-

However, from reading both sets of texts and other texts dealing with this problem, I can't conclude anything apart from the fact that Marx's criticism indeed hits the foundations of that particular kind of idealism (which would mean that in order to do some class analysis one is better off getting rid of any traces of what's important for Hegel's idealism in particular, and idealism in general too)

It is inarguable if you don't argue for it, but merely assert it.

Which "basic logical presumpt