The Question of Leftist Framentation

[Ecofarm]

There's not going to be any communist resurgence. China is in full economic retreat, maintaining only the crushing social domination of the formly Stalinst regime. The USSR is still troublesome but not likely to backslide significantly. What does communism have? Cuba and Venezuela? The poorest country in S. America, Bolivia? nK?

It's over, communism. Good riddance. Marx didn't foresee social (not economic!) revolution under capitalism, that was his greatest oversight and his ultimate undoing. We liberalized under an economic 'class' system. We now gaurantee worker's rights, civil rights and human rights (in some of the world). These things Marx saw as possible only post-commie revolution. Without the social oppression of the capitalist system (at his time, typically represented by Monarchs, Theocrats and Dictators), Marxism lost its purpose.

There are no slaves in the liberal western democratic world, just people who need to get a job. Of course, there will always be some sort of a 'sir dick' who disagrees, so... please excuse my pre-emptive dismissals, as I've no intention of waging counter-counter arguments regarding the fecal peanuts of communist dogma.

To end the fragmentation, we need an increase in freedom both socially and economically. I suggest ending marriage (replaced by civil union, if we must) and ending capital punishment... and implementing the fair tax (we can make it more progressive via scaling and increasing the prebate). This, of course, requires a knowledge of actual real world politics but I think it is a decent compromise. I don't think the fair tax is partisan, but it is supported almost exclusively by republicans. I also do not think marriage or capital punishment should be partisan positions... so what do I know.



ps. Damn, Luiz, you crushed that poor organization. What tools. Even if they agree with Cheezy at the moment, at least he knows what they are now.

 

[Richard Cribb]

This thread has proven educational, at least I hope so.
And the lesson delivered is quite simple.
We can't have nice things here.
Whatever the topic, whatever occasion one can be damned sure that a band of the most hateful, aggressive, extreme right-wing trolls trample down on their big flat feet,crushing everything beneath them with the display of their usual three cardinal virtues; bigotry, pettiness and self-rightousness.
What they leave behind for the survivors then is mostly intellectual wasteland.
I hope also that my friend Cheezy have realised that the worst thing to do, is to give them attention. Ignore them, report them, but by all means avoid being engaged in mud-wrestling. Never fight their way, never give them attention, focus on what is relevant.
Just remember that moral indignation from the right should never be taken seriously. I am not conceived behind a christmas three. I know what atrocities their beloved capitalism is responsible for. I also know exactly which banner they will join if to defend it.
So, since you asked:

False.

Since you obviously don't pay attention to what I actually say, go ask Richard Cribb, for example, how I feel about Stalin, someone who has nothing to gain by speaking the truth in the matter.

Good principle that; calling for Cribb.
Even if he is not going to pay more attention to what I say, and I couldn't care less about that.
Still, for the record, only a completely ignorant person could call you a Stalinist.
The problem is only that in his hateful, twisted, myopic little world , you are not allowed to say anything vaguely positive about Stalin without being his sworn disciple and the lover of Belzebub and all his little devils.
Guess that makes me a stalinist then. I can live with that.
Might even return to the topic.

Never realized why Lenin receiving money from Germans is such an issue anyway, certainly not for his defenders. It would be quite consistent for Lenin to do so, and it's definitely an acceptable action according to the revolutionary moral code. That action justified itself by turning out to be bad for Germany when Lenin and his successor Stalin created a mighty Soviet state that, despite everything, turned out to be Germany's downfall. "The imperialists will give us the rope on which they'll be hanged upon themselves" at its most classic. All hail Lenin's political genius.

This is so well written that I will excuse you for talking about the genius of Ms. Marple in another thread. Because really, what is she to sergeant Cribb?
I am not an expert on the history of the 20th century in general or Russia/USSR in particular, but as far as my understanding goes did the revolutionaries in Russia get funds from many sources (In the beginning by Stalin's gangster activities, by the way). That claim about Germany is certainly not the most odious one. But I must confess that I would have liked to have it backed up a bit more solidly than just a claim from a herostratically famous unhistorian, who for instance have demonstrated a staggering ignorance regarding an event concerning his own country and some rather disturbing views on the American Civil War.
Still as you so rightly point out, it is no reason why Lenin should not have accepted
such funds. And why he should be condemned about it. Need I repeat what Brecht stated was the only virtue of the communist?

I like Lenin as a character, he's quite complex. He's got a lot to answer for, though.

Indeed. Lenin was no angel, he could certainly act hard and fast when he found it necessary. But then his situation (in the Sartrean sense of the word)was rather different than yours or mine, or what?
I fail to see any important political leader, disregarding political ideology, who doesn't have a lot to answer for.

There's not going to be any communist resurgence. China is in full economic retreat, maintaining only the crushing social domination of the formly Stalinst regime. The USSR is still troublesome but not likely to backslide significantly. What does communism have? Cuba and Venezuela? The poorest country in S. America, Bolivia? nK?

It's over, communism. Good riddance. Marx didn't foresee social (not economic!) revolution under capitalism, that was his greatest oversight and his ultimate undoing. We liberalized under an economic 'class' system. We now gaurantee worker's rights, civil rights and human rights (in some of the world). These things Marx saw as possible only post-commie revolution. Without the social oppression of the capitalist system (at his time, typically represented by Monarchs, Theocrats and Dictators), Marxism lost its purpose.

There are no slaves in the liberal western democratic world, just people who need to get a job. Of course, there will always be some sort of a 'sir dick' who disagrees, so... please excuse my pre-emptive dismissals, as I've no intention of waging counter-counter arguments regarding the fecal peanuts of communist dogma.

To end the fragmentation, we need an increase in freedom both socially and economically. I suggest ending marriage (replaced by civil union, if we must) and ending capital punishment... and implementing the fair tax (we can make it more progressive via scaling and increasing the prebate). This, of course, requires a knowledge of actual real world politics but I think it is a decent compromise. I don't think the fair tax is partisan, but it is supported almost exclusively by republicans. I also do not think marriage or capital punishment should be partisan positions... so what do I know.



ps. Damn, Luiz, you crushed that poor organization. What tools. Even if they agree with Cheezy at the moment, at least he knows what they are now.

Moses!
Do you write for The Onion, lad? If you don't already, I recommend you to send them this sample of your art. You have a clear obligation to let a bigger part of the world than our little virtual bar enjoy your satire. Only that ironic ps was full worth the entrance fee.

There are fortunately also quite a few sane and constructive posts on the thread, and I intend to return to them tomorrow.
I will also present my opinions regarding this very important topic, even if I suppose quite a few of you already are familiar with them.

 

[Eretz Yisrael]

Don't blame them, that’s their job.
When China had a border conflict with the Soviet Union over the Manchurian Chinese Eastern Railway in 1929, CCP actually had the audacity to call it an "international imperialist conspiracy against the Soviet Union" and ask all the workers to begin a massive strike and "armed defence of Soviet Union".

According to Communist rhetoric, you could label anything against the Soviet Union as either imperialist, revisionists, etc...you know the details. The whole Cultural Revolution propoganda thing.
I wonder what Cheezy thinks about Maoists.

 

[Ecofarm]

This thread has proven educational...

Moses!
Do you write for The Onion, lad? If you don't already, I recommend you to send them this sample of your art. You have a clear obligation to let a bigger part of the world than our little virtual bar enjoy your satire.

Flattery will get you everywhere!

There are fortunately also quite a few sane and constructive posts on the thread, and I intend to return to them tomorrow. I will also present my opinions regarding this very important topic

Insufficient.

I suppose quite a few of you already are familiar with them.

Yeah, you're a commie. We get it :yawn:

I don't think anyone is interested in the fecal peanuts of that dogma, though some may profess expertise.

 

[vesley1987]

According to Communist rhetoric, you could label anything against the Soviet Union as either imperialist, revisionists, etc...you know the details. The whole Cultural Revolution propoganda thing.
I wonder what Cheezy thinks about Maoists.

Nah, we did better, We managed to label Soviet Union itself as imperialist and revisionist. As RRW mentioned once, we also called the Soviets capitulationist for leaning towards the USA and battling against such behaviour by meeting Nixon, the true old friend of Chinese people. This surely make CCP far superior than any other commies.

 

[Ecofarm]

We managed to label Soviet Union itself as imperialist

The USSR was imperialist, even by the most uninformed opinion.

and revisionist

That doesn't make sense. The USSR, as a totalitarian state, wrote its own internal history irregardless of fact as it was created. The USSR, as a revisionist entity, exists only in the Stalin worship of today.

 

[vesley1987]

You don't get the reference at all.

 

[Ecofarm]

Feel free to youtube-embed it for me.

 

[Dachs]

Haha, you asked a Chinese guy to use YouTube, oh Ecofarm you're such a card

 

[vesley1987]

Youtube? How dare you!
It was banned because of it's persistent imperalist propoganda against the socialist China, corrupting youth with decadent materials, and sabotaging the proletariate domestic industry, namely Youku(优&#37239.

 

[Ecofarm]

I didn't just ask, I said 'feel free'.

 

[Eretz Yisrael]

The USSR was imperialist, even by the most uninformed opinion.

That doesn't make sense. The USSR, as a totalitarian state, wrote its own internal history irregardless of fact as it was created. The USSR, as a revisionist entity, exists only in the Stalin worship of today.

Even China's communist historians admit that they used to call the USSR after Stalin's rule revisionist; so I dont get why you're trying to deny it.

 

[Ecofarm]

exists only in the Stalin worship of today

As I wrote.

The USSR was not significantly revisionist, just as it did not significantly exist, after stalin; thus, there was no significant revisionism any more than 30% of today's Russians loving Stalin.

Stalin apologists might be revisionist. But the USSR (as a whole)? No. They dictated current reality (internally); they had no need to re-write anything.

 

[holy king]

Youtube? How dare you!
It was banned because of it's persistent imperalist propoganda against the socialist China, corrupting youth with decadent materials, and sabotaging the proletariate domestic industry, namely Youku(优&#37239.

youku is slow as hell.

 

[vesley1987]

youku is slow as hell.

Why would you use youku anyway? I didn't know it has many foreign users.
In China, it's definitely faster than Youtube, even before the latter was baned.

 

[Richard Cribb]

Yeah, you're a commie. We get it :yawn:

And you are a pair of Lederhosen short of being a nazi. Got you too.

I don't think anyone is interested in the fecal peanuts of that dogma, though some may profess expertise.

Don't think too much. Stick to being hilarious.

 

[holy king]

Why would you use youku anyway? I didn't know it has many foreign users.
In China, it's definitely faster than Youtube, even before the latter was baned.

no copyright restrictions.

 

[Traitorfish]

There's not going to be any communist resurgence. China is in full economic retreat, maintaining only the crushing social domination of the formly Stalinst regime. The USSR is still troublesome but not likely to backslide significantly. What does communism have? Cuba and Venezuela? The poorest country in S. America, Bolivia? nK?

It's over, communism. Good riddance. Marx didn't foresee social (not economic!) revolution under capitalism, that was his greatest oversight and his ultimate undoing. We liberalized under an economic 'class' system. We now gaurantee worker's rights, civil rights and human rights (in some of the world). These things Marx saw as possible only post-commie revolution. Without the social oppression of the capitalist system (at his time, typically represented by Monarchs, Theocrats and Dictators), Marxism lost its purpose.

There are no slaves in the liberal western democratic world, just people who need to get a job. Of course, there will always be some sort of a 'sir dick' who disagrees, so... please excuse my pre-emptive dismissals, as I've no intention of waging counter-counter arguments regarding the fecal peanuts of communist dogma.

That rather assumes that the "liberal western democratic world" exists in an economic vacuum. We have not eliminated our proletariat, merely exported it to the developing world- that would be "the rest" to your "some of the world". China, for example, is a fairly decent modern-day equivilent of the sort of state Marx was talking about- statist, heavily stratified, driven by exploitation of the proletarian class, yet with a swiftly growing, disenfranchised urban industrial class. That it is in the processing of shedding a decaying facade of pseudo-socialism is neither here nor there. Simply because authoritarian capitalist exploitation is not occurring across town from you, remember, does not imply that it is not occurring at all.
Regardless of whether Marx was right, wrong or dribbling insane, these realities cannot be ignored, wherever you sit on the political spectrum.

 

[Merkinball]

I guess its only possible for you to defend your fascistoid positions when you make such a caricature of the opposition as this. Carry on, its only your. - Cheezy

In what meaningful way are these groups that you wish to see united any different than Fascism in Germany or Italy? Or say, totalitarianism in Russia? All you advocating for is a different means to the same end.

The Communist Party opposed the war before June 1941 for the same reason it opposed the entirety of World War I: ...

...Its really not a hard concept, and its the same attitude that most peoples about war before they see something worth fighting for in that war. Its the attitude that sane people have about war. - Cheezy

Except that you and I both know that arguments for going to war, particularly the Great Wars, are not this trite.

Yes they did. But you'd be hard pressed to find me endorsing such actions unless the other Left parties were actively fighting against the socialist government in power, such as was the case in Sovnarkom. - Cheezy

But you do realize the logical conundrum presented by what you are proposing... right? I think the major flaw in your opening post is ignoring the differences in these different ideologies in supplanting them with your own fantastical notion that these groups are humanitarian in nature. Independently that may be true. On a united basis, though, they are not. The problem inevitably becomes one of mutual, collective, sacrafice from within each group. Each of your leftist groups prioritizes its own end ahead of the rest. From a leftist, collectivist perspective, how do you expect unity to occur when environmentalists are placing more priority in their selfish movement as opposed to other groups? The only way that you can seize power, impose a "leftist" style of economy AND government at the same time, is by one group garnering power over others, and other groups ceding power, authority, and their individual ideals to another. If unity is going to occur among these extreme left groups, then the only logical conclusion that I can see, if it is to be carried out in an efficient manner, is Stalinist like totalitarianism THAT YOU DESPISE! I asked you earlier where my place was with good reason, because my place in your united leftist utopia is essentially the same as yours. And that is in the backseat of the ruling class.

But tell me, if Lenin and the Bolsheviks were so against unity, then why did the Bolsheviks seize power for the Petrograd Soviet and not simply for themselves, which they could have easily done? Why did they repeatedly invite other parties like the Mensheviks, Socialist Revolutionaries, and even the Anarchists to form the government, even after they had walked out and boycotted the Soviet? Why did he extend an invitation even to the Cossack dons to form their own Soviets and join Sovnarkom? Why, during the early days of the Revolution, did the Bolsheviks actively resist taking lives wherever possible, from the storming of the Winter Palace to the arrests of saboteurs, Kadet soldiers, Provisional Government members, and others? Have you read Ten Days that Shook the World? The Bolsheviks only adopted brutal methods when their hand was forced into doing so, because the infinitely smug Mensheviks refused to wield the power handed to them that they should have had the balls to take eight months earlier and decided instead to become terrorists and provocateurs. - Cheezy

Again, I disagree. And precisely because of what I described above. At the time the Bolsheviks came to power, they had the same bright eyed egalitarianism as you had. They were idealists who believed that they could find equal common ground with all of those groups you listed. Just as you believe that you can find common ground with modern day leftist groups on humanitarian principles. Ironically, the Bolsheviks found their ideals as humanitarian in nature, and probably identified and reached out to those other groups because they felt their goals were humanitarian in nature (in divergence with capitalists) as well. The Bolsheviks and communists ranging from Lenin, to Stalin, to Khrushchev all embraced totalitarianism specifically because it was IMPOSSIBLE for them to unite with all of those groups. They simply represent the largest and most powerful group, and ended up exuding their authority onto other political groups in order to obtain their own selfish desires. The Bolshevik Leninist desires won out over the Anarchists and others. To more on point, it was Mensheviks was not "infinitely smug". It was the Bolsheviks that were infinitely smug, as evidence by their insistance on using violence and brutal force to accomplish their own personal agenda. Why would you suggest that modern leftist groups would be any different? What ideological divergence exists for this to occur?

The Bolsheviks only adopted brutal methods when their hand was forced into doing so, because the infinitely smug Mensheviks refused to wield the power handed to them that they should have had the balls to take eight months earlier and decided instead to become terrorists and provocateurs. And the bourgeoisie, when they began to purposefully sabotage the rail lines and train consists, or the Provisional Government, as it destroyed public records, blew up telegraph stations, and downed power lines; these things are acts of terrorism and treason, and only counter-revolution can demand the brutal actions Lenin was forced into adopting. The Bolsheviks did not adopt these measures until they were forced to. - Cheezy

But do you not realize that these are all the result of individual groups, not unlike today's fractured political groups, all acting out in their own self-interest in response to a threat of totalitarianism? The end result of Leninism responding to what you describe as "terrorism and treason" is the simple fact that Lenin had the most power, wealth, and human capital compared to the other competing parties. To be for sure, if a capitalist was in the same position, you would not be defending their actions as defenders of society. And again, what happens when a leftist group who advocates for state control, collectivism, control over the economy (and by extension your way of life), begins to forcefully implement policies that they see as humanitarian, but diverge from your ideals? And to be certain, your ideals are more inline with mine than theirs. What will you do? Where will you side? Will you be participating in terrorism in treason? Or what if your ideology does indeed gain control of the most wealth and power compared to other political groups? Will you resort to slaughtering those who stand against you and seek to topple your agenda simply because your ideals diverge from theirs? Will you be justifying your power, your violence, and your excess by labeling all dissenters from your specific worldview as traitors, terrorists, and enemy collaborators?

I seem to remember you talking about how much better Pinochet was because he only executed a few thousand people. There was a rather long expose about how rightist dictators were better because political repression wasn't really that bad so long as it wasn't done by leftists. - Cheezy

By pointing out Luiz's contradiction, don't you think you've contradicted yourself? You defend Lenin for resorting to violence based upon his own definition of what constitutes a terrorist or treason (which, coincidentally, is basically not being a Leninist), and at the same time you're damning Pinochet for doing the same thing! A person who stands up for his ideals using violence is a terrorist or a treasonist, but a person who did the same Chile based upon leftist fundamentals is?...

@At Traitorfish - I find it incredibly amusing that you are blasting capitalism and defending a leftist framework as a defense of the proletariat. Hilarious, mind you, that a leftist framework killed millions and marred China economically versus the rest of the world for decades. They basically hit the reset button for years thanks to the inevitable conclusion of totalitarianism and statism when the left meets "unity."

 

[Ecofarm]

We have not eliminated our proletariat, merely exported it to the developing world- that would be "the rest" to your "some of the world".

Sorry dude, but noone forces the 3rd world to export stuff to the first. They do so because they ge paid alot more than their own country can pay them. We didn't "export" anything.

If anyone is to blame for the conditions of China, it is the Chinese. Don' blame the west for the CCP's failures.