You most certainly can support communism on a national level. In fact, communism in an international level is what cannot be supported as the idea is too far-fetched and utopian, whereas localism is much more efficient. As you will notice, all successfull communist experiments were on a national level.

National Bolshevism is a semi-spiritual ideology, it makes perfect sense.

"But so do teh fascests! We must get rid of all things fascist!!!11!!1"

Great, so you are denying that works such as Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations" are proponents of liberal values such as greed and rampant individualism?

But consumerism influences culture and depends on liberal values to stay afloat. Who is more likely to become a rampant consumerist, a riteous person with a high sense of culture and morality, or a shallow person who only cares about self-indulgence and likely borders on hedonism?

No, consumerism is based around national pride (well, except for the current globalist systems implemented in the west and are being spread around the world, but we all know how honest they are...), consumerism is a highly individualist concept based on the betterment of ones self at the expense of society. Looking at it in a materialist context, that is also the case. What will the first world bourgeoisie have to fall back on if they cannot oppress the third world and risk revolution if they oppress their own workers? What will the third world bourgeoisie have to fall bakc on if their line of support in the west is eliminated? Nothing, which is why they would have to radically compromise with the working class, this way creating a society with private property and without savage economic liberalism. All people would be property owners in an egalitarian manner rather than a handfull of people owning 95% of the property and virtually everyone else owning absolutely nothing.

Right, because the working class is so heavily expsed to liberal education while the bourgeoisie is completely in the dark and not exposed to anything.

Again, you have it completely backwards. Liberalism is anything but a working class concept.

We should abandon both capitalism and its social baggage.

See above.

Do homosexuals not promote their lifestyle? Do Jews not have a disproportionate ammount of control? Would it not be unwise to call the Boxer Rebellion and anti-apartheid movement "anti-white"? Cut the ad hominem shit and stop trying to step around my question. Direct me to anywhere where the NBP promotes racism or sexism. Until then, this discussion is through.

If they do, excellent. But I will not lose any sleep over the fact that they like their society (if they do, of course). I am not a dogmatist on a mission to "spread my values" to the rest of the world.

Well, of course, but that will happen for the reasons I mentioned above.

I know, and I know the context in which that could happen. Certainly not under the guise of "the international proletariat."

I think it is pretty safe to say that the bourgeoisie would be surrendering if they gave up liberalism and ceased to be a parasitic force. The only people who win are the proletariat and those interested in a healthy society.

Dogmatist rhetoric.

I will, but their interests and beleifs will be withheld, not mine.

I never implied that. I respect individual's private lives as long as society isn't affected by it.

You advocate imperialism. Obviosuly not in the interests of a nation or ethnicity but in the interests of an ideological clique, under the guise of it "being for their own good" the same thing neo-con's do. "We know Iraqi's aren't interested in the American Dream, but "liberty" and "democracy" are great things so it's for their own good."

So what's in it for you if women don't have to wear veils in the other side of the world?

Rampant uncontrolled immigration is bad. Like Ive said many times (and the platform says), loyalty is what makes someone a part of a nation and the end of neo-liberalism will stop immigration for material purposes.

Again, I don't care what people do in their private lives as long as it dosen't hurt society. I would not criminalize homosexuality or any form of sexual deviancy (except pedophillia) as long as it is kept private, otherwise it will degenerate society. Children need to be protected through the teaching of morality. There is a very big difference between liberty and libertinage and when there are groups like NAMBLA out in the open promoting their aganda, you know where society is headed at (the extreme level).

Kinship is not based on class. And even if it was, the idea of "class" is different in all society's, which is the point I was trying to make. There is no kinship between your average lotto-playing Republican-voting citizen in the US and a kid living in a cardboard box in cambodia, either material or spiritual. To suggest otherwise borders on insanity.

Not your idea of the working class, anyways.

"Aligning oneself with an imaginary working class identity is no different from aligning oneself with the bourgeoisie. It is merely another way to spread globalism."

I attack the disease itsself by pointing out the symptoms. What is so hard to understand about that?

Falsely, of course, because all leaders have to pretend what they do is in the national interest, even if it couldn't be farther from the case (look at Pinochet, Rios Montt, Mobutu, etc.)

The workers would not need to rise up against my NATIONALISM because they would not be exploited. Just like they did not rise up against Peron or Chavez. The only people who ever do rise up against populist nationalist socialism are the oligarchy and bourgeoisie ultra-left intellectuals who pretend to be in favour of the working class (and thus, are a lauphing stock at best and a serious threat to efficient humanist socialism and anti-imperialism at worse).

None, because the bourgeoisie work for their own private interests and thus are traitors to their nations.

Damn, you are dillusional beyond hope. Why did the workers not rise up against Peron then? Maybee because he improved their lives without false rhetoric and empty slogans? The Argentine communist party during Peron's time was very much like the Iraqi Communist party today, they were willing to align with the oligarchy and the imperialists to push their sectarian agenda because the workers and the real revolutionaries almost universally supported Peron. That is why the guerrilla movements in the 60's and 70's in Argentina were all Peronist. Also, the National Syndicalists under Primo de Rivera were actually quite progressive in the beginning but became corrupt and allied with reactionary elements. Anyhow, even if they were "fascists," can you name any example of "fascism" coming to power after the 20's 30's and 40's? Of course not, that is why your hysteria is lauphable.

Blah, blaf fucking blah, more rhetoric. I already proved you wrong and Im not repearing myself, look above.

Oh? so your ideas on "Islamo-fascism" are changing then? Great!

The Chechnyan rebels are allies of western imperialism and the NWO, like the Kurds in Iraq. They are the tool of people who have an agenda to divide the Russian federation into easily controllable regions.

More rhetoric, see above.

Yes it can. And I am not taking about "Democratic Party" style welfare capitalism, I am talking about industrial nationalism. I already explained how it would end capitalism.

I am going to ignore all references to NB as "fascist" "Nazi" and "racist" from now on as you have not proved it is any of that. As for collective ownership, I already told you how it worked in the USSR, the NB's are hardly advocating anything different. There was collective land and there were private plots. Private property existed but in an egalitarian fashion, not savage neo-liberalism. Everyone owned land, as opposed to a handfull of people owning everything.

Again, see above. Im not repeating myself and this is long enouph as it is.

That is why their communities should be there to help. That is why I support Aztlan and the Brown Berets.

The woman could move if it was not on a material basis and only if conditions are right in the host nation. That material basis should be ended by promoting industrial nationalism at home.

*sigh* see above.

Ending immigration on the otherhand, or discouraging it, is a solution to a symptom, not the problem.

Then they cease to be Puerto Ricans anyways, in my eyes.

The ideological backbone of the NSDAP before the Hitlarians took over had no racialist agenda. Read "Hitler and I" by Otto Strasser. And the NB's have no racialist agenda either. Read the goddamn platform and FAQ without a biased mentality, they actually show concern for the African race. Besides the NSDAP did not "exterminate the Jews" but that's another story.

Regardless, you still could not prove that NB is "fascist" so that is how it comes out as.

See above.

What? Quit smoking shit. Russian life-expanse refers to the improvement of Russian life, not "expanding Russia."

They also uphold Lenin, why not take that into equal account? That is ridiculous "proof" of NB being "fascist." Lenin was influenced by Mussollini's early writings, the Cuban Revolution took influence from Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera (who Im sure you consider "fascist") so then, why do you not consider them "fascists"? Sorry, but until you properly prove that NB is fascist (that is, ideologically and politically based on the idea of corporatism) or at least make a decent argument, this discussion is through.

Limonov wants to destroy the pro-imperialist Chechen movement. Just like Saddam wanted to do the same with the Kurds. The NWO thrives on division of strong nations.

And the idea that all heterosexual sex is rape is certainly not.

I am not kissing anyones ass. I just think RAF makes some good points against the politically correct line that all eugenics is "fascist." So tell me, is horse-breeding fascism? There was a black member in che-lives arguing in favor of eugenics too. Secondly, MIM did not expose jack shit. That article was, at best, a lauphing stock for all three boards. It's hillarious enouph that MIM bases its view on movements on shit that kids write on boards, but that article was full of inconcistencies. First of all, your over-analyzation seemed to ignore the fact that Anarch and RAF were at each other's throats, that Anarch was friends with the Administrator, who is Korean, and you also argued that there were FBI informers in the forums with absolutely no proof or reason to think so (yeah, the FBI has nothing better to do then spy on some kids in internet forums ), and to top thing's off, it said that RAF stands for Royal Air Force! Then you wonder why you are not taken seriously in a lot of forums.

I'll respond to your bullshit later, for now I'll leave you with this poster from the NBP website.

Yet another example of the NBP's blatant use of Fascist imagery, sloganry and ideas. In this case the Nazi spread-winged eagle.

One more? You guys don't even try very hard, do you?



This post has been edited by Che y Marijuana on Feb 1 2005, 11:34 AM

Besides your usual rebuttal using imagery, why don't you actually counter his points CyM?

We've all seen those images, old shit and another pathetic attempt to "prove" them being fascist. They use the hammer and sickle too, so I guess that makes them communist? Why not take everything into account instead of just what suits your argument? Or better yet, argue. It isn't that hard, Im a working man with a busy schedule and I find time to do it, you should be able to between your trips.

As I said, I will respond later, I have already devoted alot of time to this thread, and it seems the youngin isn't paying much attention anyways.

Socialist experiments. You speak of Communism as if it didn't involve the distruction of borders, states, money and classes. I can assure you, it does.

In otherwords, it is anathema to Bolshevism, which is a materialist ideology.

The point is, unlike "Third Positionism", Marxism analyzes the system, not the things related to it. We're not gonna stop breathing because Fascists do it too. Where as your Fascism attacks everything that people do under Capitalism, without ever attacking Capitalism itself.

Those are not Liberal values. You fail to understand that Liberalism is a specific ideological movement within Capitalism. Greed is a part of all Capitalist ideological movements, including yours. That's an economic reality under Capitalism. We'll ignore the economic differences Liberals introduced. What you speak of, "Liberal values", are social values, those are mostly values that were absorbed into Capitalism as a result of decades of class war to win them. People like the Black Panthers threatened the order enough that change had to be implemented.

Consumerism is an entirely different story, but the reality is that "liberal values" were not introduced by the market. The market of course played the progressive role of making those battles between the working class and the bourgeoisie possible, and spreading the technologies that break down the borders and the myths of the old world. But that does not make those values the values of the bourgeoisie. As Marx said, Capitalism plays a necessary role, paving the way for Socialism and Communism, by destroying the old order. The Feudal ideas of the past are merely an obstacle on the way. Whether Capitalism tries to make a buck off of it or not doesn't matter, the deed is done.

Jesus freaks are not more noble, they're relics of the past taking their last breaths.

"Support your local merchants", "boycott foreign products".

Your consumerism is Nationalist, but it's still consumerism.

With National fervour at a fever pitch once the NBP is in power, I'd say world war.

Which is an impossibility. Current economic circumstances make it so. The Swedish model is built on what you propose, and they have discovered exactly that. There is no way to reconcile Capitalism's need for ever-expanding rates of profit, its ever-shrinking possibility for those rates of profit, and the idea of "chained Capitalism". It doesn't work. The squeeze is too tight, and it just keeps getting tighter, there is no way to afford those limits anymore for Capitalism. There is no middle ground, either sell your workers out, or kill your Capitalists.

If there's provate property,t hat property can be bought back, and you'll get back to where you started. If you go this far, what the fuck's the point? You either eliminate private property, or you turn it all over to the Capitalists, no middle ground. Any introduction of collectivized property on a large scale that falls short of nationalizing and collectivizing all industry will cause Capital flight and immediate collapse. Something you could have avoided all together if you stopped taking the middle ground just because you dislike Marx.

Then again, ending Capitalism isn't on the agenda for the shock troops sent in to save it.

Fuck Liberal education. Who do you think went out and fought for civil liberties? Harvard students or black kids and families from the ghettos? The working class core.

Course not, it's the bourgeoisie's cookie crumbs that they've thrown down to the working class fighting for the whole thing. But Liberalism's social values represent the pressure the working class has applied on Capitalists, enough to force them to promise to pay women properly, give black people the same rights as whites, allow homosexuals the same rights, and fail on all counts. But just cause the Capitalists can't do what we fought to make them do under Capitalism, doesn't mean we shouldn't destroy Capitalism and implement real equality.

Agreed, such as racialism, Nationalism, heterosexism, sexism, the drug wars, etc...

Where above? You still support private property, aka, Capitalism.

But Chechnya, and the former Soviet Republics, are a different story, right? You pretend to hide behind this neutrality, when in reality you're no different. You'd like to see your ideas spread, and that's what Limonov's "right to war" is about.

But if a girl is a little horny and gets hanged for it, you're suddenly all neutral.

Exactly, you're not going to eliminate Capitalism, as you stated, and you will build Nationalism enough to create hyper-imperialism as in world war two.

Why do you think it was the Soviet Union and not just the Soviet Republic of Russia?

The only revolutionary movement that can eliminate Capitalism is one that transcends national borders. Our strength is economic, not National. We don't have the armies, parliaments, governments. We have the docks, railways, oil fields, airports, paper mills, saw mills, farms, steel factories, etc... Internationally organizing these workers is the only way to make use of that vast strength. That's teh only way tobring Capitalism to its knees.

They cannot give up. They can only be destroyed. Some will be absorbed into the proletariat, many will go into exhile until revolution takes away all their hiding places, but as a class none can be left. Leaving an injured tiger to nurse its wounds is beyond moronic, especially if you have to share a cave with it.

The only people who could gain from the survival of Capitalism are the Capitalists, you included.

You speak of leaving the bourgeoisie in a weakened form. This is reformism. This is welfare Capitalism, a phenomenon that is far past its time.

You speak of leaving private property intact, yet again, reformism.

You are a Capitalist. A Fascist, no less.

Except for 16 year old girls who dare have sex, of course.

And you get to judge what affects society.

Neo-cons also breathe, do you breathe? How could you? I thought you were against Neo-cons!

I don't support invading nations, as I said before, but the working class all over the world, in solidarity with the working class there, has the right to support materially and vocally the struggle against Capitalism. Unions uniting together to overthrow reactionary governments everywhere.

No war between nations, no peace between classes.

At least that way I won't have to deal with people pulling knives on me as I jump in to stop them from sending their sisters to the hospital with a broken skull for threatening the family's honour.

What's in it for me, is that girl would be able to live her life without others telling her what to do. If others tell her what to do, and threaten her life, I'll threaten theirs. Balance the playing field a bit.

Same with the fights between the working classes and the ruling classes of the world. It's an unfair fight, so it's our duty to get involved on the side of the working class.

Loyalty to green fairies and imaginary lines in the sand is idiotic.

It serves no purpose. Free movement under Communism will make it possible for humanity to gradually move away from the extremes, and save resources wasted on propping up communities that should be entirely uninhabitable.

It's not your business where people go.

Who would decide what hurts society, you or Adolph Limonov?

Of course, because the disease is contagious, right?

Children, sex is bad, if you do it the green fairies will come and eat you!

The sky is falling! Oh no!

It becomes so when the class reaches a high enough point of consciousness to be revolutionary. Right now it is based on race, nation, religion, of course, all kinds of groups that have no coinciding interests. A bourgeois American has different, and opposing interests than an American worker. And yet, it serves the bourgeoisie's interests to convince the worker that because he is American, their interests are tied together.

Just as you are trying to convince us.

Of course, sometimes people make up other kinds of little fairies. Like the fake middle class, or like the caste system in india. But that doesn't mean that the actual classes are different. Only that they pretend they are to further confuse the issue.

As you're trying to do.

Of course not, the Republican is Nationalist, and has been convinced that his interests lie with his exploiters, the American bourgeoisie.

Yet in reality, his interests are closer to those of the child. As a worker, he is exploited, even if he does not see it. Ending the xploitation of one, will lead to ending the exploitation of the other.

Or Marx's. No matter how hard you try, the working class is not served by telling them they have more in common with their Capitalists than other workers in the world.

Another example of Third Positionism's failure to address actual issues. You take slogans, imagery, cultures, and look at all of those, but never look at the actual ideas.

Again, when you tell workers that they have more in common with their "fellow russians" than the workers of the world, you're telling them they have more in common with their russian Capitalists than other workers.

You are advocating class collaborationism. You are advocating accepting Capitalism.

But you attack the cure, so you attack the symptoms (and some of the signs of recovery), and defend the disease.

Remember, without an end to private property, Capitalism remains.

That's cause there is no National interest. Only the interests of one class or another. You can't please both.

Nationalism requires classes to collaborate together. Classes means Capitalism. Capitalism means exploitation.

Peron's system eventually collapsed, and Chavez, who is an internationalist, will find himself having to choose soon enough. One path, with the bureaucracy that seeks to preserve some form of Capitalism, or with the working class seeking to overthrow it. If he chooses the former, there will be blood.

The laughing stock is you, with your childish belief that a middle ground can be attained. Economically, it is currently impossible to sustain a chained Capitalism for extended periods of time.

Politically, well Salvador Allende found out the hard way.

Nations don't matter, only class. If the Bourgeoisie has given up on this delusion, why shoudl we be tied down to it? They've done pretty well for themselves giving up on it, except when they need it to justify "uniting" the classes of course. As you try to do.

First, Fascism in Spain continued until 1975, the "National Syndicalists" you refer to. Franco's "National Syndicalists", who were put into power by Hitler and Mussolini and established by Primo de Rivera. Progressive my ass.

"National Syndicalism", "National Bolshevism", "National Anarchism" (another Nazi front ideology that worships limonov), "National Socialism", it's all Fascism. Capitalism draped in the terminology of the working class to confuse class consciousness.

As to why there hasn't been any Fascism recently, because Fascism is a last ditch effort. You will never be allowed to take power until they absolutely need you. German Capitalism was in a life and death situation, as was Italian Capitalism, as was Spanish Capitalism, today there isn't a need for you. Not just yet.

Your time will come though, and we'll be ready to fight your brownshirts yet again to stop you. Capitalism is yet again approaching a global crisis point. And yet again, your kind is beginning to slither out from under your rocks, prepared to step in when history calls on you to play your role. But the working class will be ready this time.

Your ideology will serve its role, whether you admit that role or not.

What? His fight resulted in the absorption of anti-racist ideas into "liberal values".

What about the rest of the "former soviet states" you want to invade to unite the "great russian people"? Is that not imperialism?

Deny it all you want, you Fascists will play your role.

It is impossible to regulate Capitalism to "humanize" it. Anyone with a basic understanding of economics or politics can see that. And we have gone over this, you oppose abolishing private property, hence you cannot end Capitalism.

You have done the proving for me mostly.

Difference is, that happened because conditions prevented them from finishing the job, not because they believed in private property. You on the other hand, defend private property, and hence Capitalism.

Well, I'll repeat myself. You oppose ending Capitalism. Ending affirmative action under Capitalism is racist.

Oh, the poor are hungry? That's what the homeless shelters are for! Forget about fixing society, because there are charities, and ethnic mafias to take care of these people!

I have a better idea, end Capitalism, destroy the state, borders, the bourgeosie, etc... and then let her do whatever she wants so long as she contributes to whatever community she's in.

Wow... so simple it almost makes you think "why would I go to all the trouble of supporting Fascism?".

Exactly. Fuck ending immigration. Fix the problem. Your ideology concentrates entirely on the symptoms, trying to end them by brute force, instead of the much simpler solution of attacking the root cause.

Those race traitors! Off to the camps with them!

I thought the NBP wasn't related to the NSDAP's Fascism?

I don't care if you think they only became racialist when Hitler stepped in, they were Fascist all along.

Not that you would have cried if he did.

No racialist agenda indeed:

So, CyM, would you say India is fascist because it has this symbol?



Or what about all those other cultures that used it? Gee, guess "fascism" must have been a popular fashion in the ancient world.

mim3 for MIM replies:
This is standard Liberal b.s. to cover for NBP's distribution of Mussolini uncriticized.
How very tolerant of you to note both Lenin and Mussolini, just like Hitler did in his
early career with his third way b.s.

By this reasoning there is no point in struggle or discussion anyway--just "tolerance." Why not come here and utter "tolerance" and go home if you are going to argue for mushing Mussolini and Mao together?
And why the hell do I or anyone else have to go to a board like this to hear Liberal pablum when it is rained on us 24/7 anywhere we choose?

This is an example of how all the Liberal crap posing as Marxist is paving the way for fascism in one big tolerant family of Aryan race/white/U$A/"advanced" white "worker" politics.

And you are right. This discussion is finished. You have advanced to ACTION. You actively defend distributing Mussolini without criticism and you tried to deny it at first. Your action is what is important, not the Liberal yack that fools the pseudo-Marxists here.

mim3 for MIM replies:
Look jack-ass, you think Marx did not know about animal-breeding? You really think you're so new under the sun? Marxists are for smashing eugenics and the Liberals who tolerate it.

mim3 for MIM:
So what? There were Jews who chanted for Hitler and Mussolini before 1939 (and even later) too. That is not an argument of substance.

mim3 for MIM:
No, as the thread clearly demonstrates, it was about adults self-admitted and documented to be FBI informers, very much in line with the
Greensboro operation that killed 5 communists in NC in a 1979 anti-Klan demonstration--cops with neo-Nazi covers.

Now as for evaluating movements, there is no evaluation of movements only individuals such as RAF
and pathetic orgnizations like RCP=U$A, who you give too
much credit. RAF of cop-informer protecting fame has no right to associate hself with anyone undertaking armed struggle
against oppression. RAF of Che-Lives is an admirer of the British military "RAF"--and no pipe-passing bunch of lazy jerks changes that.

mim3 for MIM:
What? I'm not taken seriously among the coalition of people trying to figure out how to name the most "advanced" workers in the world--"aryan" or "proletariat" or "national socialist" material? What a surprise.
Wow, what a shock. It comes as news to me. You mean all the people who are united for exploitation are opposed to me?
Damn it's enough to make me think class analysis is true. What a stunner.

In the imperialist countries, there is no English-speaking party calling itself "socialist" or "communist" with more readers than MIM and that's
been true for years now, but you half-assed readers would not know anything about that because you make it a science not to know what you are talking about--not that it really matters, because all the people you know or have been acquainted with could unite behind one platform and they still would not change anything.

Typical--one Black persyn is how you base your politics. Or because RAF says he meant something other than the military
by his name, as if you could prove it one way or another. Petty, pointless nothings--only people falling for that will be siphoned
off by the likes of this.

"NWO thrives on the division of strong nations"--anyone who believes this from Berserk is not neo-Nazi ideology is brain dead.

This post has been edited by mim3 on Feb 3 2005, 03:07 AM

While I respect your opinion, RAF names himself after the Red Army Fraktion in Western Germany, his avatar is their logo.

mim3 for MIM:

That does not prove anything. Cop humor is often similar.
Indeed, the various government bureaucracies have their inside jokes about revolution.

It's a sign of how desperate the quibblers are to raise that when much more serious subjects are afloat. RAF is a proven and conscious defender of a self-admitted and twice-documented cop informer at the "Red Comrades."

Instead of dealing wth the evidence for that, the revisionist Liberals again look at surface matters instead of despising the enemy. They would have taken Gorbachev seriously too when he called himself a communist, the same as WWP and PTB did.

http://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/wim/wyl/crackpots.html

Comrade RAF is no cop, but let's not derail this thread any further, I wonder how the Neo-Nazi are going to defend themselves against the collection of evidence that has built up in this thread

I don't believe I said RAF is a cop, only that what he says is not proof of who he is. His actions are proof that he an FBI-symp and Royal Air Force admirer by extension.

The whole sidetracking from the struggle over fascism happened because I said RAF was "self-named" after the Royal Air Force which pre-dates the RAF you refer to.

Hopefully you agree that saying you are named after some German allegedly red organization does not make you a red. For the same reason we are arguing with Berserk here. Berserk claims s/he is not a fascist. That does not matter to us. We see the action on the NBP website. The method underlying evaluation of the NBP and RAF of Che-Lives is the same.

That is always the correct method. This method is also the heart of the struggle against revisionism which many on this board claim to uphold.

Collection of evidence? Collection of horseshit rhetoric. Im busy studying for midterms and with work, Ill respond when I have the time.

Oh yeah, 14/88!

MIM, let's take this up elsewhere, but from working with RAF, I can tell you that is not what he is named after. You may disagree with him, but it is quite clear he is a red.

Much like I may disagree with you, but cannot deny you are a comrade, and a red.

No, he predicted the restoration of capitalism in The Revolution Betrayed as the inevitable result of Stalinist policies left unchecked by the workers.

You should ask the same of yourself.

A few things. First, Trotsky was not a supporter of the Menshevik two-stage theory. If anyone was a Menshevik, it was Stalin, who implemented the two-stage theory in China and other third-world countries to the catastrophic misfortune of the proletariat.

Trotsky criticized Stalin's Menshevism all along. When Stalin got Chiang Kai-shek elected to the Comintern in the 1920's, Trotsy was the only Executive Committee member who cast a dissenting vote.

Second, the October Revolution was a "Trotskyist" revolution. It skipped the bourgeois phase by telescoping the proletarian revolution onto the bourgeois one. The October Revolution was permanent revolution in action.

Did the Bolsheviks carry out the creation of a national-bourgeois government to "fight against imperialism," and postpone socialism for a "later date?" No! They were in a third world country, but that didn't stop them from socializing the industry.

Now when we criticize Mensheviks like Chavez for halting the revolution, you tell us that Chavez is not the Menshevik--we are the "Mensheviks." But you are sadly mistaken, for you comprehend neither Menshevism nor Bolshevism. What you call "Trotskyism" is Bolshevism!

Finally, how could you expect Trotskyism to become a mass movement when its leaders were hunted down with such brutality? Anyone with a known blood relation to Trotsky was murdered by the GPU or simply "disappeared." Only his wife and one grandson managed to survive. That's not even getting started on how many of Trotsky's supporters fell to the GPU and/or Gestapo.

The bourgeoisie didn't kill Karl Marx; why did the Stalinists have to kill Trotsky? And what's with murdering his family?? Who here can justify that? I mean come on, "comrades," a true socialist state should be able to disprove the claims of a heretic by simply presenting wage information to prove that it was socialist. If Stalin had produced wage information to prove the USSR was socialist, no one would have listened to Trotsky.

This post has been edited by seraphim on Feb 7 2005, 08:36 AM

"Only utter imbeciles would be capable of thinking that capitalist relations, that is to say, the private ownership of the means of production, including the land, can be reestablished in the USSR by peaceful methods and lead to the régime of bourgeois democracy. As a matter of fact, even if it were possible in general, capitalism could not be regenerated in Russia except as the result of a savage counterrevolutionary coup d'etat that would cost ten times as many victims as the October Revolution and the civil war." Trotsky

Ok i was wrong, uncle Trotsky said that capitalism can only be restored when 10's of millions died.

These Nazbols are the most stupid bastards that i have ever seen.






Tell those morons to remove Lenin, Che and Stalin, let them keep Mao and Castro.

This post has been edited by Marxism-Leninism on Feb 12 2005, 05:56 PM