ReindeerThistle
Zimmerwald Left
The POUM screwed themselves.
And I've certainly no intent to revive it. But, the POUM called themselves "Leninists" too, so we at least owe them that slight distinction from their assassins.Whether Stalinism follows from Leninism, or is a 'perversion' of Leninism is a whole other thing I've seen argued to death.
@Chezzy the Wiz
Thank for the answer. I have an another question. While I am getting the Marx-Engel reader, but I am usure which Lenin anthology I should get, which one would you recommand? the Essential works of Lenin edited by Henry Christman or the Lenin anthology edited by Robert C. Tucker.
And I've certainly no intent to revive it. But, the POUM called themselves "Leninists" too, so we at least owe them that slight distinction from their assassins.
We wouldn't have to kill anarchists if anarchists didn't keep trying to destroy socialism. ¯\_(ツ_/¯
I have two questions.
The silly one: Who are communists endorsing for the 2016 US presidential election? Would I be correct in assuming you all are supporting the Green Party ticket/Jill Stein?
serious question:
Spoiler :Which is the better LA band? Linkin Park or No doubt?
Anarchists are the ones who build socialism, Leninists insist we paint capitalism red and call it socialism.
[RD] ("Real Discussion") threads are for mature, civil discussions. [RD] threads are for those who are genuinely interested in a free exchange of ideas, with an open mind. They are not for people who want to troll, make oh-so-witty one-liners, or derail decent discussion. They are not designed for chatting about the weather or for the random-rants type threads. Please do your best to create a strong and informative OP to get the discussion started.
[RD] threads will be moderated quite tightly. No trolling. No name-calling. No insults. No ad-hominem attacks. Discuss in a mature manner.
Cheezy the Wiz said:When you're capable of better analysis than puerile one-liner sectarianism, come back and see me.
They have. I am curious what they would have done if Sanders had been the Democratic nominee. Their position towards his campaign made strategic sense, I thought, but it would have put them in a really odd position.I'm not 100% sure if Socialist Alternative is endorsing Stein or not, but I would expect such a statement at some point. I don't think they have their own candidate.
Soltysik/Walker is also on the Natural Law Party ballot line in Michigan.We, however do.
Gloria La Riva - Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL), also running as the candidate for the Liberty Union Party in Vermont and the Peace and Freedom Party in California.
Soltysik/Walker - Socialist Party USA (SPUSA)
Moorhead/Lily - Workers World Party (WWP)
What you call "picking a fight" they would have called "revolution".A distinction Trotskyists also make. It means nothing.
I do have to laugh at the word "assassins" though, as if the POUM did not purposefully pick that fight.
The irony of this statement is tremendous particularly given that you published an essay denouncing CPUSA for not being left-wing enough because they endorsed the Democrats
What you call "picking a fight" they would have called "revolution".
To-may-to, to-mah-to.
Cheezy the Wiz said:I'm guessing this is because you think a polemic criticizing the actions of the largest left-wing party in the country, that has served for a long time as the standard-bearer of the radical left, is puerile and sectarian?
The CPUSA, which has by now discarded any semblance of leftism, is endorsing the Democrats. We regard this as among the highest levels of betrayal. They've had a line for many years now about "lesser evilism" based on a perverted understanding of the Popular Front. I actually had to write a specific polemic against this, which you can find published here.
Before you ask, the purpose of such campaigns is propaganda. It's an opportunity to spread our political message to a much wider audience than normal, and at a time when everyone's minds are very keenly political. The real fight has nothing to do with the elections at all.
plarq said:From a cold, calculated point of view of political analysis, ISIS took exactly the position what Lenin has taken 100 years ago
I have always maintained that Leninism is a sort of apocalyptic cult, much like ISIS.
If you're talking about a Leninist revolution, it will never happen in the United States, period, end of story. If you're talking about an actual Marxist revolution, a revolution in the wider society rather than a "revolution" of self-proclaimed revolutionaries taking over the state and murdering everyone who disagrees with them, it's been in the process of happening since the twenties. Capitalism's internal dynamics are destroying it from within as we speak, and have been for decades.
Revolution is over. Now join the "Allahu Akbar" ISIS revolution.
From a cold, calculated point of view of political analysis, ISIS took exactly the position what Lenin has taken 100 years ago
With a situation like the British Labour Party, things get a bit more iffy. But I'm not a British citizen and I don't have to worry about that gray area and the associated tactical concerns.
I think I might agree, but could you clarify why the Labour Party is "iffy" in a way the Democrats aren't?