NationStates Jolt Archive

You probably haven't heard of us. Our lack of exposure can be directly related to the "clique culture" that currently runs rampant throughout the forums and the fact that the leaders of pretty much all major parties are members of the clique. Plus they have better graphics. Bastards.

Members:

DHomme
Grayshness
Lienor
Verghastinsel

http://img182.echo.cx/img182/6356/rtp3cg.jpg

TRANSITIONAL PARTY
*We need to make clear that this party is not reformist. We do not think true socialism can be achieved under the current system of democracy which is based on personality rather than skill. This party only exists to gain transitional demands for the workers.
*While other left-wing parties have good intentions, we argue that their attempts to change the system from within can only end in failure as they do not understand the nature of the capitalist state
*The main objective of this party is to form a vanguard for the revolution while simultaneously managing to temporarily alleviate the huge suffering of the working classes.
*Please take this into account as the rest of the manifesto is dealing primarily with our objectives within parliament as opposed to post-revolutionary activities

ECONOMY
*Nationalise all major industries and all those which are essential to the survival of human beings
*The minimum wage is to be raised to the level that the EU has currently deemed acceptable of £7.50 an hour
*Increase taxes on the rich and lower them on the poor
*Hand more power over to the trade unions- allow secondary picketing, bring back closed shops, etc.
*Pensions, money given to asylum seekers and the dole to be increased to a basic standard of living (at the billionaires’ expense)
*Crackdown on corporate criminals and those that try to avoid corporate taxes. If the company/ owners threaten to leave the country, their ban accounts will be frozen.

PUBLIC SERVICES
*Abolish private hospitals and put all healthcare under government control
*Prohibit the private sale of medicine and instead have pharmacies run by the state
*Legalise euthanasia
*Allow abortion up until 20 weeks for any reason. After that period only if the baby poses a physical threat to the mother will abortion be permitted
*Free contraception for all
*The government must abolish private schools and allow anybody to use them
*Religious and gender segregated schooling must end
*Religion/ philosophy must be taught to all children in a non-biased manner
*University education will be made free
*The army will be significantly reduced as we will stop sending troops to kill and die in imperialist wars
*The police must have the powers to stop and search without just cause based on your situation taken away
*Those police who are still unarmed will not be given guns as there are already enough cases of police brutality.

DRUGS
*Cannabis, ecstasy, speed, LSD, magic mushrooms and any “soft drugs” to be legalised and sold by licensed proprietors to over 16’s.
*“Hard drugs” to be legalised and controlled by the state, but they can only be taken in licensed, state-operated centres.
*Rehab to be available, free of cost, to anybody who wants it
*All those in jail for dealing/possessing drugs to be freed

OTHER ISSUES
*Fascist, racist, Neo-Nazi and 'far-right' parties will be allowed. However, should they choose to march or plan political events, they will be offered no assistance from the state in any shape or form.
*Complete freedom of speech allowed to all.
*Outlaw the holding of second homes
*Open all borders and allow complete freedom of movement, in compliance with the UN charter of human rights


The manifesto may not be perfect, but considering I just did that in half an hour I think it’s alright. Anybody have any suggestions just let me know

I'd support that, broadly.

score

*holds you to promise*

*The police must have the powers it has been given since September 11th, 2001 repealed.

of all you wrote, this is the only part with which I can agree.

but, being a Trotskyite group, your biggest problem will be other communists and socialists - and your own supporters quibbling over minor points and forming rival groups!


*Fascist, racist, Neo-Nazi and far-right parties to be outlawed
*Complete freedom of speech except for the above groups. Homo/Heterophobic, Misogynistic, anti-male and religiously intolerant public speakers will face fines/ jail services.

I would like to assume that this is a joke...

*The police must have the powers it has been given since September 11th, 2001 repealed.

of all you wrote, this is the only part with which I can agree.

but, being a Trotskyite group, your biggest problem will be other communists and socialists - and your own supporters quibbling over minor points and forming rival groups!
We here at the people's front of Judea deny this categorically...


I would like to assume that this is a joke...
Oh but its not. Hate speech is a problem that needs dealing with

Wait, you're a revolutionary communist group, but you're running in an election?
I thought revolutionaries werre supposed to, you know, revolt?
:confused:

Wait, you're a revolutionary communist group, but you're running in an election?
I thought revolutionaries werre supposed to, you know, revolt?
:confused:
read the first paragraph!!!

Wait, you're a revolutionary communist group, but you're running in an election?
I thought revolutionaries werre supposed to, you know, revolt?
:confused:
Bah, thats so 20th century.

read the first paragraph!!!
A-ha.

Note to self: Read posts before responding.

bump. we need support

bump. AGAIN

Come on, there has to be at least one person out there who supports orthodox trotskyism!

Look, now we have a picture!

http://img182.echo.cx/img182/6356/rtp3cg.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)

Viva la semi-revolutionary but at first democratic process driven revolution?

Viva la semi-revolutionary but at first democratic process driven revolution?

We're just looking to get the workers some treats before the revolution finally happens

also, i don't think we can completely open our borders if we're running a command economy, as foreign traders will undercut guaranteed prices. correct me if i'm wrong. i take it we're for permanent revolution too?

We're just looking to get the workers some treats before the revolution finally happens
ah, cool. so we're not up for all that leninist "make the workers suffer to increase their revolutionary zeal" stuff.

also, i don't think we can completely open our borders if we're running a command economy, as foreign traders will undercut guaranteed prices. correct me if i'm wrong. i take it we're for permanent revolution too?
Opening borders is really the only ethical decision, however, anything else could lead to an increased sense of nationalism.
Permanent revolution yay!

ah, cool. so we're not up for all that leninist "make the workers suffer to increase their revolutionary zeal" stuff.
Though it may be somewhat effective, its highly immoral if we're being totally honest

Permanent revolution yay!
Mmm, the problem fixes itself if permanent revolution is successful anyway.

Also, yes, immoral indeed.

Ah the joys of revolutionary communism. Two members and they disagree.

Have fun now. :D

When did we disagree?

When did we disagree?

When didn't you. Go back and look.
I presume that we will close the borders - opening borders is the only ethical decision.
Redefining agreement are you?

When didn't you. Go back and look.
I presume that we will close the borders - opening borders is the only ethical decision.
Redefining agreement are you?
We're discussing policy- it's democratic centralism

We're discussing policy- it's democratic centralism

Manifestos have already been published. Too busy mopping the floor it seems to discuss these matters beforehand.

Manifestos have already been published. Too busy mopping the floor it seems to discuss these matters beforehand.
We're sorting out post-revolution policies so :P

We're sorting out post-revolution policies so :P

I would have thought that those were:
Clean mop
New bucket
Fresh water

What more will you need?

I would have thought that those were:
Clean mop
New bucket
Fresh water

What more will you need?

Those are pre-revolution needs. Post revolution will be guns, food and kittens. In that order

Woo! Democratic Centralism! Hail Comrade DHomme!

Also, no, that's debating. We're not arguing. With his charismatic party-founder and leader position and Democratic Cetralism (who does that remind you of? :eek: ) he ought to be the one making the decision really, and it's fair enough if we're talking ethics.

Ah no everyone should have a say. We're not gonna get some twisted cult of personality going on. BTW nice work posting up the RTP banner on the front page
http://img260.echo.cx/img260/4135/kittenkill0lg.jpg
http://img99.echo.cx/img99/7111/rats3lq.jpg
http://img153.echo.cx/img153/7057/tinmandead4vm.jpg

Here's our current list of posters. Feel free to make more. Just be sure stalin and mao are nowhere near any of them... those bastards
http://img164.echo.cx/img164/3341/marx7vj.jpg
http://img228.echo.cx/img228/9011/friedfuck9xp.jpg
http://img205.echo.cx/img205/9605/trotspec3qv.jpg
http://img182.echo.cx/img182/6356/rtp3cg.jpg
http://img155.echo.cx/img155/6043/catrtp7pr.jpg
http://img240.echo.cx/img240/2406/marxfonz2to.jpg
http://img223.echo.cx/img223/1928/meagain22zl.jpg
http://img69.echo.cx/img69/9509/slavery3xw.jpg
http://img170.echo.cx/img170/5286/capw4eh.jpg
http://img141.echo.cx/img141/4038/capitalcrime4ge.jpg

We could do with more stuff on being the underdog, and supporting the underdog. Also we could probably garner more support from small-time posters if we take an anti-clique (forum royalty) line.

eg.http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=8997956#post8997956

VOTE FOR THE PARTY THAT SUPPORTS THE UNDERDOG. VOTE FOR THE PARTY THAT IS THE UNDERDOG. VOTE RTP!

...perchance...

reasonable, but not sure about che. he seemed a bit top down for me, otherwise good manifesto and open borders is a must.

reasonable, but not sure about che. he seemed a bit top down for me, otherwise good manifesto and open borders is a must.
we added che cos hes the most photogenic communist

"No Enemies On The Left"? By which I mean, would we coalesce with other socialist parties if we can't secure 50% of the vote and neither can they?

I Cannot Support You Because even though Trotsky was a great revoloutionary the word "Totskyist" or "Trotskyite" has been misused many times by groups such as the Socialist Workers Party who are nothing more then a lick-spittle hootinanny of dumb lefties.

So you're not supporting us because you got burned by Trotskyists before? Come on, man. All the other parties ARE "a lick-spittle hootinanny of dumb lefties."

the word "Totskyist" or "Trotskyite" has been misused many times by groups such as the Socialist Workers Party who are nothing more then a lick-spittle hootinanny of dumb lefties.
explain

I Cannot Support You Because even though Trotsky was a great revoloutionary the word "Totskyist" or "Trotskyite" has been misused many times by groups such as the Socialist Workers Party who are nothing more then a lick-spittle hootinanny of dumb lefties.
The SWP are idiots! Somebody said it the best when they said that they are "the biggest trotskyite group in Britain, pretending to be liberals, ran by a stalinist getting backing from the mosques"

"No Enemies On The Left"? By which I mean, would we coalesce with other socialist parties if we can't secure 50% of the vote and neither can they?
I think if worst comes to worst we could make a pact with the UCDP but the Social-democrat party are just liberals if you look at their policies

More banners have been added and are on display on page 2

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y81/sleb/bulldogred.jpg

Ooo i like it. suggests power

I Cannot Support You Because even though Trotsky was a great revoloutionary the word "Totskyist" or "Trotskyite" has been misused many times by groups such as the Socialist Workers Party who are nothing more then a lick-spittle hootinanny of dumb lefties.

George? Is that you?

I think if worst comes to worst we could make a pact with the UCDP but the Social-democrat party are just liberals if you look at their policies

However you are welcome to that load of socialist idiots. They may even have some soap to help with the cleaning, you never know.

However you are welcome to that load of socialist idiots. They may even have some soap to help with the cleaning, you never know.
I said liberals, not classic liberals you randian bastard

You've got my support.

*Fascist, racist, Neo-Nazi and far-right parties to be outlawed
*Complete freedom of speech except for the above groups. Homo/Heterophobic, Misogynistic, anti-male and religiously intolerant public speakers will face fines/ jail services.
This is a joke. You idea of "complete" freedom of speech is essentially "freedom of speech for those who agree with me!"

This is a joke. You idea of "complete" freedom of speech is essentially "freedom of speech for those who agree with me!"
No its freedom of speech ecept for those who promote hatred at groups who have no choice as to whether or not they belong to those groups. If it was everyone who disagreed id outlaw conservatives, liberals, libertarians, democratic socialists, etc...

No its freedom of speech ecept for those who promote hatred at groups who have no choice as to whether or not they belong to those groups.
Hateful people arer idiots but if you want to claim complete freedom of speech, then people should be allowed to hate. Such laws also don't work. Nazi hate speech is illegal in Germany, and yet they have the biggest Nazi problem.

What is your party's policy on revolution in other countries? I suggest that military spending be increased in order to spread the revolution by force, to liberate the workers in the countries around you. A communist state surrounded by capitalists cannot survive.

Hateful people arer idiots but if you want to claim complete freedom of speech, then people should be allowed to hate. Such laws also don't work. Nazi hate speech is illegal in Germany, and yet they have the biggest Nazi problem.

What is your party's policy on revolution in other countries? I suggest that military spending be increased in order to spread the revolution by force, to liberate the workers in the countries around you. A communist state surrounded by capitalists cannot survive.
Military spending is too large because we keep fighting imperial wars. Pre-revolution we need to cut the budget hugely and with any luck disband the army but post revolution we aim to arm the workers to protect the country and fund trotskyist rebels abroad.

Eh....I'm a little hesistant on this one here.

Eh....I'm a little hesistant on this one here.
Go on, vote for us, we have the best propaganda (see page 2)

Power to the workers!!! Power to the poor!! Power to the people!!

POWER TO THE RTP!!!


An what is with all the cleaning jokes Alien Born???

Power to the workers!!! Power to the poor!! Power to the people!!

POWER TO THE RTP!!!


An what is with all the cleaning jokes Alien Born???
They want me to be the classic liberal party's janitor because i said it was better to do an honest day's work as a janitor than make money off the janitor. So I'm gonna sharpen the mop end and pike them all

Military spending is too large because we keep fighting imperial wars. Pre-revolution we need to cut the budget hugely and with any luck disband the army but post revolution we aim to arm the workers to protect the country and fund trotskyist rebels abroad.
Why not use your military to invade oppressive capitalist countries and from there on, institute socialism in those countries?

Also, armed workers can never repel a fully professional invading army. You need a military for that.

Why not use your military to invade oppressive capitalist countries and from there on, institute socialism in those countries?

Also, armed workers can never repel a fully professional invading army. You need a military for that.
If we did that it could lead to imperialism and authoritarianism. Plus there's the fact that after a revolution the country's resources may be exhausted so actual work won't be possible

No but we'd be able to make their lives as difficult as possible and be able to ensure that there is no material gain to be had from invading our country

I definitely agree with this program, you have my support.

btw: you sound pretty serious you might wanna check www.socialistworld.net

I definitely agree with this program, you have my support.

btw: you sound pretty serious you might wanna check www.socialistworld.net

cheers man ill check it out

Ive made a new picture. its a bit more depressing than the others but its a stronger image

bump. man half the messages on here are basically bumps

If there is one thing o don't like abot Trots its their abilety to ight over dogma, i mean in that relative small youth organisation i am a member of theres alredy two fractions of trots, and if the IS will join we will end with tre factions :p

But hey a revolutionary is a revolutionary, keep up the good work :fluffle:

If there is one thing o don't like abot Trots its their abilety to ight over dogma, i mean in that relative small youth organisation i am a member of theres alredy two fractions of trots, and if the IS will join we will end with tre factions :p

But hey a revolutionary is a revolutionary, keep up the good work :fluffle:
What group are you in?

The Socialist Youth Front il Denmark.
Ungdomsfront.dk

Ok, Ill join, but i dont agree with the legalisation of drugs.

The Socialist Youth Front il Denmark.
Ungdomsfront.dk
Cool, I'm with world revolution. Have you voted in the NS general yet?

Cool, I'm with world revolution. Have you voted in the NS general yet?

I dont have any money, and i think i am too young to join a real life political party :(

I dont have any money, and i think i am too young to join a real life political party :(
Nah revo's a youth group- just type in "world revolution" to google and take a look at it. Basically if you're between 12 and 26 you'll be welcomed

Nah revo's a youth group- just type in "world revolution" to google and take a look at it. Basically if you're between 12 and 26 you'll be welcomed

Ok, ill take a look. :)

Ok, ill take a look. :)
cool and vote RTP.

Not sure if we have a chapter in denmark but you could try setting one up if you have friends who agree with out teachings

Is it Socialists Stand, Socialist workers party, or 4th int., you are referring to? They all exist in Denmark
Im not a Trotskist, even though i find te permanent revolution thingy sympatic. I'm a Revolutionary Socialist with stong libertarian sympaties (but no longer an anarchist). I don't see the need to label myself as either a Trot or anything else, and beside i'd had to read Trotski before i would join anything based on his thoughts.

Oh and i am wery critic about what Troski did under the russian rvolution. In this i mean that he voted for disbanding fractions in the communist party, and the way he (among others) dealt with the Kronstadt uprising.
But much water has run trough the river since, and i know you can seperate the historic Trotski and the writer Trotski.

Is it Socialists Stand, Socialist workers party, or 4th int., you are referring to? They all exist in Denmark
Im not a Trotskist, even though i find te permanent revolution thingy sympatic. I'm a Revolutionary Socialist with stong libertarian sympaties (but no longer an anarchist). I don't see the need to label myself as either a Trot or anything else, and beside i'd had to read Trotski before i would join anything based on his thoughts.

Oh and i am wery critic about what Troski did under the russian rvolution. In this i mean that he voted for disbanding fractions in the communist party, and the way he (among others) dealt with the Kronstadt uprising.
But much water has run trough the river since, and i know you can seperate the historic Trotski and the writer Trotski.

The youth group is called revolution but it was founded by a UK based group called "Workers Power" which is also part of the "league for the fifth international". We are essentially orthodox trotskyist but there are differences in the group. We use a democratic centralist system to decide policy but I couldnt tell you for sure if theres a section in Denmark. Look us up and go on the forums to ask about theory, Ill enquire as to whether there's any Danish groups we're affiliated with

Oh and i am wery critic about what Troski did under the russian rvolution. In this i mean that he voted for disbanding fractions in the communist party, and the way he (among others) dealt with the Kronstadt uprising.
But much water has run trough the river since, and i know you can seperate the historic Trotski and the writer Trotski.
Well, yes. It should be noted that the ban on factions was Lenin's doing, intended simply to streamline the decision-making process during the War, and Trotsky did later suffer under it when Stalin used it against him after the "Platform of the 45."

http://img236.echo.cx/img236/9583/poster0vf.jpg

http://img236.echo.cx/img236/9583/poster0vf.jpg

That links broken LP.

Hey Sax, we took a beating overnight

That links broken LP.

Hey Sax, we took a beating overnight
No it's not. Must be your computer

http://img228.echo.cx/img228/6298/tnstopus6kg.jpg

After a long period of thinking, ive decided to resign from this party because i do not agree with vital parts of the constitution. Sry guys/gals. :(

After a long period of thinking, ive decided to resign from this party because i do not agree with vital parts of the constitution. Sry guys/gals. :(
Well fair enough, it's your decision, but could you at least say what part you dont agree with?

Well fair enough, it's your decision, but could you at least say what part you dont agree with?

All of it... MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

http://img145.echo.cx/img145/7950/tinsp0ov.jpg

TIN sez-Vote for the Party of Order!

All of it... MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


Quite you. You think we have a lack of order? Lenin is on our posters. The man who gives his name to "Leninist discipline"- that's order for you

Quite you. You think we have a lack of order? Lenin is on our posters. The man who gives his name to "Leninist discipline"- that's order for you

Heh heh heh... You think you know order? Once we one day reach power, we will show you the true meaning of Order... and you shall fall before us... it is only a matter of time...

~The TIN man, Lord of the Party of Order, seeker of power

Heh heh heh... You think you know order? Once we one day reach power, we will show you the true meaning of Order... and you shall fall before us... it is only a matter of time...

~The TIN man, Lord of the Party of Order, seeker of power

Your order is pitiful. Just wait until we come in after the revolution. You'll beg to go back to your disorganised ways

Your order is pitiful. Just wait until we come in after the revolution. You'll beg to go back to your disorganised ways

Heh heh heh! I have to admit, I like the way you think...

http://img153.echo.cx/img153/7057/tinmandead4vm.jpg

Now thats lying... as you can see, i'm still here. So burn in hell scum.

Now thats lying... as you can see, i'm still here. So burn in hell scum.
No thats just a simulator. I have the real TIN man's head. I stuck it next to Tink's

*bumps thread for the good of the revolution*

Are there any other revo trots on at the minute? If so what do you think about this proposed left wing coalition?

We'll use it to further our own goals and then cast them aside when the revolution comes! Just like Lenin when the other socialist parties gave him refuge after the failed "July Days" rising!

Also, yeah... shit, we lost 50% of our seats. That's a whole one!

We'll use it to further our own goals and then cast them aside when the revolution comes! Just like Lenin when the other socialist parties gave him refuge after the failed "July Days" rising!

Also, yeah... shit, we lost 50% of our seats. That's a whole one!
I know. But I cannot see us finding any ground with the DSP. They are not even out to establish socialism, only tinkering with capitalism a little. I've got a new poster you might like (theres more on page 2)

http://img154.echo.cx/img154/5192/arms4pc.jpg

bump

Oh and what exactly is youre intrepetation of democratic centralism?

i do know that it is in some cases are nessesary to have a commen stand on vital issues, but as much at the decision making should be made as close on people as possibly.

As we've only got two members and we agree on most issues, so it's not really an issue. If we get more members, it'll be more democratic. At the moment, as I agree with most things DHomme says anyway, I'm willing to concede to him on minor points of policy.

Also, yeah that's pretty rockin', DHomme.

Here's some others I've been using you may or may not have noticed. They garner sympathy and random votes respectively.

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y81/sleb/POOR.jpg

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y81/sleb/HANSAYS.jpg

Oh and what exactly is youre intrepetation of democratic centralism?

i do know that it is in some cases are nessesary to have a commen stand on vital issues, but as much at the decision making should be made as close on people as possibly.
We debate policy until we reach an agreement (we may require some sort of vote) which then becomes our official line which we argue using and act upon

It's cool, but it might mean conflicting signals with my posters. I could withdraw mine if the "arm the workers" thing gets support. Other Revolutionary Trots? Any views herein? Anyone about, even?

Arming the workers would also be a good idea as the army's being stood down. We shant be fightin imperialist wars, so we only need guns for defence against counter-revolutionary elements. We should teach civil disobedience in schools. If an entire nation employs civil disobedience measures then any invading army's going to make very little progress.

It's cool, but it might mean conflicting signals with my posters. I could withdraw mine if the "arm the workers" thing gets support.

Arming the workers would also be a good idea as the army's being stood down. We shant be fightin imperialist wars, so we only need guns for defence against counter-revolutionary elements. We should teach civil disobedience in schools. If an entire nation employs civil disobedience measures then any invading army's going to make very little progress.

Well it makes sure that people realise were revolutionary (in case they didnt get that). And yeah, post revolution, arms will be needed to protect socialism. Plus it ensure the government doesnt get corrupted if everybody in the nation is armed

Yes, well do be reminded that not all Trotskyists revolutions have to be violent. It is encouraged that you do not use violence to spread communism, as that only leads to the idea of opressment and fear by the communists. Also, everybody has the right to their opinion in a communist state, it eliminates class, yes, but not thought. If someone wants to be a nazi, and has a reason that they think they should be, then they should have the freedom to be. Remember, the point of communism isnt to kill and restrict people, its quite the opposite. :)

Indeed. The revolution will be as bloodless as possible. Leninist-surgical-strike style.

Indeed. The revolution will be as bloodless as possible.

And as for the restriction of political freedoms? You cant just tell someone they cant think the way they do...just look at Hitler and what happened to him in the long run.

*Fascist, racist, Neo-Nazi and far-right parties to be outlawed
*Complete freedom of speech except for the above groups. Homo/Heterophobic, Misogynistic, anti-male and religiously intolerant public speakers will face fines/ jail services.

Wow. Really, what is the purpose of "freedom" when you take it away. Do you think nazis/fascists/everybody else are stupid and primitive? Then why are you afraid of them?

Though I must admit I'm surprised at the anti-male. Could that be a typo for anti-female?

I'm laughing my head off here. "Complete freedom of speech, except...." I suppose you want to give people the right to agree with you. That's a splendid freedom. I can't wait for this bloodless revolution!

We're just looking to get the workers some treats before the revolution finally happens

Just more run-of-the-mill communists with grandiose visions of revolution. Here's what Kaczynski has to say about modern rebels:

The leftist of the oversocialized type tries to get off his psychological leash and assert his autonomy by rebelling. But usually he is not strong enough to rebel against the most basic values of society. Generally speaking, the goals of today's leftists are NOT in conflict with the accepted morality. On the contrary, the left takes an accepted moral principle, adopts it as its own, and then accuses mainstream society of violating that principle. Examples: racial equality, equality of the sexes, helping poor people, peace as opposed to war, nonviolence generally, freedom of expression, kindness to animals. More fundamentally, the duty of the individual to serve society and the duty of society to take care of the individual. All these have been deeply rooted values of our society (or at least of its middle and upper classes (4) for a long time. These values are explicitly or implicitly expressed or presupposed in most of the material presented to us by the mainstream communications media and the educational system. Leftists, especially those of the oversocialized type, usually do not rebel against these principles but justify their hostility to society by claiming (with some degree of truth) that society is not living up to these principles.

Wow. Really, what is the purpose of "freedom" when you take it away. Do you think nazis/fascists/everybody else are stupid and primitive? Then why are you afraid of them?

Though I must admit I'm surprised at the anti-male. Could that be a type for anti-female?

I'm laughing my head off here. "Complete freedom of speech, except...." I suppose you want to give people the right to agree with you. That's a splendid freedom.



Just more run-of-the-mill communists with grandiose visions of revolution. Here's what Kaczynski has to say about modern rebels:

The leftist of the oversocialized type tries to get off his psychological leash and assert his autonomy by rebelling. But usually he is not strong enough to rebel against the most basic values of society. Generally speaking, the goals of today's leftists are NOT in conflict with the accepted morality. On the contrary, the left takes an accepted moral principle, adopts it as its own, and then accuses mainstream society of violating that principle. Examples: racial equality, equality of the sexes, helping poor people, peace as opposed to war, nonviolence generally, freedom of expression, kindness to animals. More fundamentally, the duty of the individual to serve society and the duty of society to take care of the individual. All these have been deeply rooted values of our society (or at least of its middle and upper classes (4) for a long time. These values are explicitly or implicitly expressed or presupposed in most of the material presented to us by the mainstream communications media and the educational system. Leftists, especially those of the oversocialized type, usually do not rebel against these principles but justify their hostility to society by claiming (with some degree of truth) that society is not living up to these principles.

I am sorry you feel that way about communists, but please, be sure to not base your opinions on the majority of us today. :)

You will have a brain drain within a few years, with no private business you will also start to lose the doctors and nurses and the intelligencia who will leave in droves if they can't find a profitable outlet for their talent. Just like under Harold Wilson's Britain. Business keeps a country running, like it or not. Where is the money going to come from for nationalising education, health and major industry? Don't say just from military cuts. Also without competition from business the major industries will become innefficient and un-motivated, much like the old Soviet businesses. True socialism like you preach is virtually impossible at present. The country will degenrate as you anger the middle classes and the rich, who in turn leave, then who will you tax? Its a good idea but you will isolate the middle and upper classes and by the way it is impossible to create a classless society. There will always be rich and powerful. The choice at rpesent is whether to encourage enterprise or to effectively ban it, if there is no reward for success then the cleverest individuals will leave. These ideas are inpracticable.

I am sorry you feel that way about communists, but please, be sure to not base your opinions on the majority of us today. :)

Every single communist I've run across has had the "rebellious" goal of stomping facsism/racism/"intolerance" with censorship. Not to mention, ideologically, communism is bunk at it's core.

You will have a brain drain within a few years, with no private business you will also start to lose the doctors and nurses and the intelligencia who will leave in droves if they can't find a profitable outlet for their talent. Just like under Harold Wilson's Britain. Business keeps a country running, like it or not. Where is the money going to come from for nationalising education, health and major industry? Don't say just from military cuts. Also without competition from business the major industries will become innefficient and un-motivated, much like the old Soviet businesses. True socialism like you preach is virtually impossible at present. The country will degenrate as you anger the middle classes and the rich, who in turn leave, then who will you tax? Its a good idea but you will isolate the middle and upper classes and by the way it is impossible to create a classless society. There will always be rich and powerful. The choice at rpesent is whether to encourage enterprise or to effectively ban it, if there is no reward for success then the cleverest individuals will leave. These ideas are inpracticable.

Well, my interpretation of the communist manifesto is that when perfect communism is established, there will be no need for money, and therefore no need for an economy...

Then don't vote for us. Good day.

Every single communist I've run across has had the "rebellious" goal of stomping facsism/racism/"intolerance" with censorship. Not to mention, ideologically, communism is bunk at it's core.

Well meet me, i dont believe in stomping out political thinking just because i disagree with them.

Well, my interpretation of the communist manifesto is that when perfect communism is established, there will be no need for money, and therefore no need for an economy...

Yeah and how long exactly would it take to achieve perfect communism? Face it, you will always have rich and poor. There will be those that excel and those that do not. Communism is not achievable, socialism is. Fact.

If we did that it could lead to imperialism and authoritarianism. Plus there's the fact that after a revolution the country's resources may be exhausted so actual work won't be possible

No but we'd be able to make their lives as difficult as possible and be able to ensure that there is no material gain to be had from invading our country
You have a point about it possibly being imperialist.

I disagree with your method of "make their lives as difficult as possible" because in the process of doing this your country would be completely destroyed. Look at Vietnam and Afghanistan, what happened to them. A proper army would be better in the long run.

Cool, I'm with world revolution.
Yet you don't think that your country's military should have any hand in it? World revolution is not going to happen without your help.

Quite you. You think we have a lack of order? Lenin is on our posters. The man who gives his name to "Leninist discipline"- that's order for you
Lenin was too authoritarian for you to feature him, wasn't he?

I know. But I cannot see us finding any ground with the DSP. They are not even out to establish socialism, only tinkering with capitalism a little. I've got a new poster you might like (theres more on page 2)

http://img154.echo.cx/img154/5192/arms4pc.jpg
You could ally the DSP. The two parties must have a few common goals. You could achieve those first.

*reference to poster* - I love it, but take the USA, where many workers and poor people are armed. Where's the war?

Where's that picture from? It's radical!

You will have a brain drain within a few years, with no private business you will also start to lose the doctors and nurses and the intelligencia who will leave in droves if they can't find a profitable outlet for their talent.
Haven't you read Trotsky? He realised that a socialist country cannot survive on its own as an island in a sea of capitalism. Thus, permanent revolution, to encourage socialist revolutions in the surrounding countries.

Yeah and how long exactly would it take to achieve effect communism? Face it, you will always have rich and poor. There will be those that excel and those that do not. Communism is not achievable, socialism is. Fact.

It would take about as long as it will to convince you that communism works, because everyone needs to be willing to accpept that it may work for it to actually work.

Why would the successful rich and middle classes, with comfortable lives, ever accept to a climbdown in their standards of living? Anyone who isn't working class would object to this radical communism. And by the way, just because someone wrote socialist countries can't exist does'nt mean its true. Just look at Spain. Oh yea and if you look deep into yourselves do you really think you could do without all the comforts capitalists provide for you? Everybody would end up doing manual jobs with no home comforts. Without attractive opportunities for business investment, BANG, goodbye high street shops and shopping malls. If trade unions are given too much power they will try to run the country like they did in Britain in the 80s. Also trade unions that re too powerful would discourage business too much.

It would take about as long as it will to convince you that communism works, because everyone needs to be willing to accpept that it may work for it to actually work.

Thus it is doomed to perpetual failure as there is never going to be a time when everyone is convinced othat the same political ideal is possible. This implies the only way it can work is to restrict freedom of thought by restricting freedom of knowledge. Count me out. (But that you already knew)

Why would the successful rich and middle classes, with comfortable lives, ever accept to a climbdown in their standards of living? Anyone who isn't working class would object to this radical communism. And by the way, just because someone wrote socialist countries can't exist does'nt mean its true. Just look at Spain. Oh yea and if you look deep into yourselves do you really think you could do without all the comforts capitalists provide for you? Everybody would end up doing manual jobs with no home comforts. Without attractive opportunities for business investment, BANG, goodbye high street shops and shopping malls. If trade unions are given too much power they will try to run the country like they did in Britain in the 80s. Also trade unions that re too powerful would discourage business too much.

Why would rich people step down, maybe because wealth dosent last forever, and equality will shape a better tomorrow for everybody, including their relatives in the future. Honestly, thats a hard question, and i dont know, because i havent seen communism work in a highly developed country (or any for that matter)

Thus it is doomed to perpetual failure as there is never going to be a time when everyone is convinced othat the same political ideal is possible. This implies the only way it can work is to restrict freedom of thought by restricting freedom of knowledge. Count me out. (But that you already knew)

No, they dont have to agree with it at the start, but i guarantee they will like communism in the end, and adopt the communist ways of life. At least thats my hope.

What are your views on the following:

Globalization

Europeans moving en-masse to third world countries for economic reasons

Culture

No, they dont have to agree with it at the start, but i guarantee they will like communism in the end, and adopt the communist ways of life. At least thats my hope.

It all depends on how well the indoctrination works I suppose.

What are your views on the following:

Globalization

Europeans moving en-masse to third world countries for economic reasons

Culture

Can you be a bit more specific? I dont want to write a book right now :)

It all depends on how well the indoctrination works I suppose.

You suppose right :)

Haven't you read Trotsky? He realised that a socialist country cannot survive on its own as an island in a sea of capitalism. Thus, permanent revolution, to encourage socialist revolutions in the surrounding countries.

Beautiful. Globalization in action!

No, they dont have to agree with it at the start, but i guarantee they will like communism in the end, and adopt the communist ways of life. At least thats my hope.

My father LOVED communism and really enjoyed the communist way of life. Enough to move out of his communist country and immigrate to the U.S.!

Beautiful. Globalization in action!



My father LOVED communism and really enjoyed the communist way of life. Enough to move out of his communist country and immigrate to the U.S.!

Interesting, i didnt know there was ever a self proclaimed communist state.

Can you be a bit more specific? I dont want to write a book right now :)

Are you for or against, wish to preserve it or destroy it, ban it or allow it, etc.

What are your views on the following:

Globalization

Europeans moving en-masse to third world countries for economic reasons

Culture

Globalization: For

Europeans moving en-masse to third world countries for economic reasons: neutral

Culture: Definitely for preservation of all kinds of culture.

You have a point about it possibly being imperialist.

I disagree with your method of "make their lives as difficult as possible" because in the process of doing this your country would be completely destroyed. Look at Vietnam and Afghanistan, what happened to them. A proper army would be better in the long run.

We don't want to make people's lives more difficult but production will most likely be disrupted during the social upheavals that follows a revolution


Yet you don't think that your country's military should have any hand in it? World revolution is not going to happen without your help.

World Revolution is the name of a political group im with, but I am for a permanent revolution (hence why Im a trot). The problem is that the army has limitations- who will harbour us when we try to invade, how can we be sure that we aren't sending working-class kids to die for a failed revolution. Plus we'd need to completely tear out any nationalist elements from the army and restructure it which could take a while


Lenin was too authoritarian for you to feature him, wasn't he?

Lenin was authoritarian but he knew how to run a revolution, I'll give him that.

You could ally the DSP. The two parties must have a few common goals. You could achieve those first.
Unfortunately if we combined with the DSP our policies would be drastically watered down and the people who voted for the RTP would have been betrayed. I'm simply not willing to do this until I get some voter consent


*reference to poster* - I love it, but take the USA, where many workers and poor people are armed. Where's the war?

Where's that picture from? It's radical!

http://www.opendoorsusa.org/Display.asp?Page=LAphotos and i added the caption which is a chant from world revolution

The problem with the USA is that its the one country where the working class are right wing. It's very unusual as with the rest of the world most workers are left wing, be they reformist or revolutionary. This could be down to several reasons-
America was founded by a bunch of rich white guys who didn't fancy paying their taxes
America fought the cold war and the people see it as their duty to fight communism
The crushing of any left wing movement by the previous presidents
The highly consumerist nature of their culture
A class war in America is unlikely as so few people know anything whatsoever about the left-wing movement. Only in America is "red" an insult.

Why would the successful rich and middle classes, with comfortable lives, ever accept to a climbdown in their standards of living? Anyone who isn't working class would object to this radical communism. And by the way, just because someone wrote socialist countries can't exist does'nt mean its true. Just look at Spain. Oh yea and if you look deep into yourselves do you really think you could do without all the comforts capitalists provide for you? Everybody would end up doing manual jobs with no home comforts. Without attractive opportunities for business investment, BANG, goodbye high street shops and shopping malls. If trade unions are given too much power they will try to run the country like they did in Britain in the 80s. Also trade unions that re too powerful would discourage business too much.
Well I've come from quite a well-off background but I feel what my parents did to get their money was unethical. I've seen just how damn hollow consumerism is from the inside- discovering left-wing politics really freed me from some mental chains.
Also, wants this point about Malls- that makes no sense. If the people's government decides that its better for everybody if shops are clustered together, then we'll keep the malls.
Trade Unions ran the place in the 80s? When Maggie Thatcher was around? I think you mean the 70s and even then they werent damaging the economy. You may notice that the period of economic recession in the 70s directly relayed to the Oil crisis and corresponded with global poor performance, while it improved in the 80s because of improvements around the rest of the world. Maggie Thatcher managed to successfully kill of any left wing movement.
Also, how is Spain socialist? It has a mixed market running in it. While much of the population may be left wing, this isn't clearly reflected in the government or the markets.

What are your views on the following:

Globalization

Europeans moving en-masse to third world countries for economic reasons

Culture

Globalisation is horrendous as it is being done by corporations who are keen to exploit people wherever they have no protection for capitalism (think Asian Sweatshops)

Didn't realise it was happening. I'll try and come to a conclusion on it

Some cultures are more damaging than others and so need to be discouraged. eg. American "me me me" culture which is highly rejective of other groups, the practice of female circumcision in certain parts of Africa, capital punishment which exists around the world

I don't understand how you can preserve cultures if you have globalization. When two populations meet they either converge into one ("melting pot") or one is destroyed (US vs Native Americans, for example). Both solutions destroy original cultures.

Apparently we've got to stop hijacking threads. Woo. :rolleyes:

I don't understand how you can preserve cultures if you have globalization. When two populations meet they either converge into one ("melting pot") or one is destroyed (US vs Native Americans, for example). Both solutions destroy original cultures.
That's the thing though, cultures are constantly changing. Nobody has one permanent culture and that's something very few people seem to be able to grasp. It also varies from class to class, gender and social grouping. For example, culture would be different for an Old age pensioner and a skinhead, and for a nazi skinhead and an anarchist skinhead. There are so many different cultures popping up and closing down, it would be nice if we could preserve some of them but we have to accept that society changes, and it is essential that it does

Some cultures are more damaging than others and so need to be discouraged. eg. American "me me me" culture which is highly rejective of other groups,

American culture doesn't exist.

the practice of female circumcision in certain parts of Africa,

Why do you want to spread your own values on foreign peoples? Let them decide what is appropriate for themselves.

capital punishment which exists around the world

Pfffft. Welcome to a world where some people are best when they're not alive. Let's measure a life by it's will to accomplish and not by it as a life in itself.

That's the thing though, cultures are constantly changing. Nobody has one permanent culture and that's something very few people seem to be able to grasp. It also varies from class to class, gender and social grouping. For example, culture would be different for an Old age pensioner and a skinhead, and for a nazi skinhead and an anarchist skinhead. There are so many different cultures popping up and closing down, it would be nice if we could preserve some of them but we have to accept that society changes, and it is essential that it does

Each of those 'cultures' is a subculture--a culture within a culture. A clique.

American culture doesn't exist.
What do you mean by that? That there's no arts, traditons or differences in dialect in America?


Why do you want to spread your own values on foreign peoples? Let them decide what is appropriate for themselves.

I'm sorry but its a practice that asserts male dominance over women, mutilates peoples bodies, causes numerous unnatural deaths and eliminates the joy from sex.


Pfffft. Welcome to a world where some people are best when they're not alive. Let's measure a life by it's will to accomplish and not by it as a life in itself.

Right, we should probably murder the disabled as well then, seeing as they wont ever accomplish anything

Each of those 'cultures' is a subculture--a culture within a culture. A clique.

So whats to say that all the different european cultures arent a subculture to one massive eurasian culture?

I don't appreciate the idea of Fascism being attributed to Nazism. The two are completely different - the only similarities being they lie to the Right of the political scale.

What do you mean by that? That there's no arts, traditons or differences in dialect in America?

They're all produced to make money and worship the consumer. It's not guided by the society but by the almighty dollar.

I'm sorry but its a practice that asserts male dominance over women, mutilates peoples bodies, causes numerous unnatural deaths and eliminates the joy from sex.

Why do we have to play father to the rest of the world. Let them do whatever stupid things they want to do. It doesn't concern us and it isn't our battle to fight.

Right, we should probably murder the disabled as well then, seeing as they wont ever accomplish anything

Depends what kind of disabled. Terri Schiavo style disabled, most certainly.

They're all produced to make money and worship the consumer. It's not guided by the society but by the almighty dollar.

Capitalism is a culture though, a culture which america has swallowed hook line and sinker, and its a culture thats spreading.


Why do we have to play father to the rest of the world. Let them do whatever stupid things they want to do. It doesn't concern us and it isn't our battle to fight.

Just because people live in different parts of the world doesn't mean that they suddently lose moral significance. They are still human beings that need our help


Depends what kind of disabled. Terri Schiavo style disabled, most certainly.
Wow, you're actually suggesting eugenics. Lovely

I don't appreciate the idea of Fascism being attributed to Nazism. The two are completely different - the only similarities being they lie to the Right of the political scale.

Yes and no. Fascism and Nazism/National Socialism (they're both different things) are seperate ideologies and have different ways of thinking based on value judgements. The "political scale" is subjective and only works with preexisting ideodologies that are imagined to be objective.

I don't appreciate the idea of Fascism being attributed to Nazism. The two are completely different - the only similarities being they lie to the Right of the political scale.
Nazism is a splinter of fascism. They both rely on hero worship, strong nationalist feelings and an appeal to the working classes by pretending to be left-wing. Frequently fascist states also encourage racism because it helps define an 'us' and 'them'- "'they' are ruining the country for people like'us'"
In both states people are seen as unimportant. They are pretty damn similar to be quite honest

The problem is that the army has limitations- who will harbour us when we try to invade, how can we be sure that we aren't sending working-class kids to die for a failed revolution. Plus we'd need to completely tear out any nationalist elements from the army and restructure it which could take a while

Who will harbour you? Perhaps the oppressed socialist people of the country.

Yes you must accept that people will die in revolutions and wars.


Unfortunately if we combined with the DSP our policies would be drastically watered down and the people who voted for the RTP would have been betrayed. I'm simply not willing to do this until I get some voter consent

It's a greater betrayal never to try to get any of your policies into the government because you are not willing to ally with any other party. Yes your policies would be temporarily watered down, but think of it this way: the right wing parties want to get rid of free education and healthcare. The Democratic Socialists are in favour of it. With the left divided, the right can win easily. However, a left wing alliance could easily beat them. Free education and health care could be institued because the DSP is in favour of those things also.

Divided, none of your policy goals will be realised. Allied, and you will achieve at least some of them.

The problem with the USA is that its the one country where the working class are right wing. It's very unusual as with the rest of the world most workers are left wing, be they reformist or revolutionary.
Yeah, it's weird. US politics is so far to the right, even the Democrats are right wing. I think it's because the USA has always been fundamentally capitalist, and in the 20th century their government has done a job of scaring and bullying the left out of existence.

Nazism is a splinter of fascism. They both rely on hero worship, strong nationalist feelings and an appeal to the working classes by pretending to be left-wing. Frequently fascist states also encourage racism because it helps define an 'us' and 'them'- "'they' are ruining the country for people like'us'"
In both states people are seen as unimportant. They are pretty damn similar to be quite honest

Firstly, 'Fascist states' might be true here on NationStates but that is only because of the misconception of Fascism = Nazism, therefore racist.

There has only been one Fascist state in history, only one - and that was Italy between the years 1922 and 1943.

People being seen as unimportant is a point of view.....some could say in Communist states it is much the same. Take North Korea for example, where the people have no free speech at all, cannot communicate with the outside world and are unable to access mobile phone technology or the internet. Or in Soviet Russia, where prisoners were sent into the uranium mines, or where political prisoners were sent to the gulags in Siberia.

Fascism had no racial tendencies. Mussolini dreamt only of ruling Italy and making it great again. Hitler and the Nazis believed in the purity and superiority of the Aryan race and the hatred of the Jews. Fascism held no such beliefs.

EDIT: Just edited to add the following. I want to make this absolutely clear - I believe all men and women were created EQUAL, I have nothing against any group of people except those who seek to harm others. In that, I detest the Nazis and the Neo-Nazis. I don't think much of Mussolini either. My nation here on NS might be called 'British Fascism' but I am not actually a Fascist, I actually like to think of myself as politically neutral with both Left and Right wing tendencies.

Who will harbour you? Perhaps the oppressed socialist people of the country.

Yes you must accept that people will die in revolutions and wars.

But if you launch a foreign invasion you'd probably find it difficult to actually get into the country as no nearby countries would be willing to harbour your troops until a time when you can actually invade. It would be more efficient to send guerrilla experts to train up local troops to ensure that the country's revolution goes as smoothyl as possible.


It's a greater betrayal never to try to get any of your policies into the government because you are not willing to ally with any other party. Yes your policies would be temporarily watered down, but think of it this way: the right wing parties want to get rid of free education and healthcare. The Democratic Socialists are in favour of it. With the left divided, the right can win easily. However, a left wing alliance could easily beat them. Free education and health care could be institued because the DSP is in favour of those things also.

Divided, none of your policy goals will be realised. Allied, and you will achieve at least some of them.

But the thing is, the DSP, the RTP and the UDCP would all vote against that. We are essentially already in a loose alliance by sharing similar ideals with these other parties. The only problem is what happens when the DSP think that a bill is too left-wing for their tastes? Will the RTP be made to toe the line and sell out revolutionary politics?



Yeah, it's weird. US politics is so far to the right, even the Democrats are right wing. I think it's because the USA has always been fundamentally capitalist, and in the 20th century their government has done a job of scaring and bullying the left out of existence.
agreed

*Hand more power over to the trade unions- allow secondary picketing, etc.


Interesting manifesto, very well written. But, can someone tell me what is "secondary picketing"? I'm familiar with picketing, but what secondary element can be added?

Firstly, 'Fascist states' might be true here on NationStates but that is only because of the misconception of Fascism = Nazism, therefore racist.

There has only been one Fascist state in history, only one - and that was Italy between the years 1922 and 1943.

People being seen as unimportant is a point of view.....some could say in Communist states it is much the same. Take North Korea for example, where the people have no free speech at all, cannot communicate with the outside world and are unable to access mobile phone technology or the internet. Or in Soviet Russia, where prisoners were sent into the uranium mines, or where political prisoners were sent to the gulags in Siberia.

Fascism had no racial tendencies. Mussolini dreamt only of ruling Italy and making it great again. Hitler and the Nazis believed in the purity and superiority of the Aryan race and the hatred of the Jews. Fascism held no such beliefs.

Both North Korea and the USSR are not communist- a communist state is an oxymoron as communism is the end product of socialism where there would be no formal state. Both N. Korea and USSR adopted highly authoritarian positons based on Stalin and Mao's beliefs.

You talk about the importance about freedom, but there was little under Mussolini was there? By '26 he had gained dictatorial power. He ordered assasinations, he took whatever governmental post he felt he wanted, he allowed the blacklshirts to kick the shit out of commies and socialists. He fucked over trade unions and peddled his propaganda.

Mussolini was not a good man and using him as your shining beacon is hardly effective

Interesting manifesto, very well written. But, can someone tell me what is "secondary picketing"? I'm familiar with picketing, but what secondary element can be added?

If McDonalds workers were on strike, they would only be allowed to form a picket outside of McDonalds at the minute. However, secondary picketing means they could also picket the places which help McDonald- such as the factories where cows are turned into burgers. The strike becomes more effective as more workers are drawn into it

Both North Korea and the USSR are not communist- a communist state is an oxymoron as communism is the end product of socialism where there would be no formal state. Both N. Korea and USSR adopted highly authoritarian positons based on Stalin and Mao's beliefs.

You talk about the importance about freedom, but there was little under Mussolini was there? By '26 he had gained dictatorial power. He ordered assasinations, he took whatever governmental post he felt he wanted, he allowed the blacklshirts to kick the shit out of commies and socialists. He fucked over trade unions and peddled his propaganda.

Mussolini was not a good man and using him as your shining beacon is hardly effective

Hang on a second here - since when was I making him my 'shining beacon'? I only described his attitudes towards Italy.....surely any dictator in history, be it Left or Right Wing, at the end of the day dreamt of their country becoming 'great', either in power or vision? I never said he was good.

HOWEVER he was not as bad as Hitler - Mussolini never ordered the extermination of almost an entire race of people.

Why is it these days that every time you say something positive about a person, people think you support them?

Hang on a second here - since when was I making him my 'shining beacon'? I only described his attitudes towards Italy.....surely any dictator in history, be it Left or Right Wing, at the end of the day dreamt of their country becoming 'great', either in power or vision? I never said he was good.

HOWEVER he was not as bad as Hitler - Mussolini never ordered the extermination of almost an entire race of people.

Why is it these days that every time you say something positive about a person, people think you support them?

Well you said that the only true fascist state was under mussolini, so I assumed from your name that you are a supporter of that state, which as I pointed out, is pretty rotten.

He may not have been as bad as hitler but he was still a dick who turned his country more right-wing and more authoritarian than it was when he found it.

Capitalism is a culture though, a culture which america has swallowed hook line and sinker, and its a culture thats spreading.

Perhaps. It is agreed that it is a disease.

Just because people live in different parts of the world doesn't mean that they suddently lose moral significance. They are still human beings that need our help

Why do they need our help? Are they less intelligent and somehow incapable? Are they savages, as you seem to imply?

Only they themselves fall under their own moral significance, and nobody else's.

Wow, you're actually suggesting eugenics. Lovely

Yes, I do look upon eugenics as an excellent tool for bringing healthier and stronger humans.

Why do they need our help? Are they less intelligent and somehow incapable? Are they savages, as you seem to imply?

Only they themselves fall under their own moral significance, and nobody else's.


Because thats the culture that they live under at the moment its very hard to break the mindset that they have grown up experiencing. We shouldn't help them as in colonise them and force them to stop it but eventually we'd hope to incorporate them, and all people, into a socialist state which would discourage the negative way people view each other. Ending this discriminatory system would lead to an end of these barbaric practices.


Yes, I do look upon eugenics as an excellent tool for bringing healthier and stronger humans.

Alright chill out, Adolf

The problem with the USA is that its the one country where the working class are right wing. It's very unusual as with the rest of the world most workers are left wing, be they reformist or revolutionary. This could be down to several reasons-
America was founded by a bunch of rich white guys who didn't fancy paying their taxes
America fought the cold war and the people see it as their duty to fight communism
The crushing of any left wing movement by the previous presidents
The highly consumerist nature of their culture
A class war in America is unlikely as so few people know anything whatsoever about the left-wing movement. Only in America is "red" an insult.

Yeah, that pretty well sums this country up. I agree with a lot of your points, but let me ask you: what happens after the revolution? Do you just become another police-state dictatorship?

Well you said that the only true fascist state was under mussolini, so I assumed from your name that you are a supporter of that state, which as I pointed out, is pretty rotten.

He may not have been as bad as hitler but he was still a dick who turned his country more right-wing and more authoritarian than it was when he found it.

I said the only true Fascist state was under Mussolini because, it was....he invented Fascism, and when questioned what Fascism was, he said 'Whatever you want it to be'...it was his ideology, he made it work. He had no plans for it to continue after his death - he simply didn't care. There was no 'Thousand Year Reich' in his eyes.

The reason why I am saying about this is because I intend to become a keen political student. I am very interested in politics, particularly those of the 20th century. Unfortunately due to a particularly lax education system, I haven't learned much yet - but I will be studying Stalin next year which I am very much looking forward to.

Perhaps calling my first nation here 'British Fascism' was a mistake. But I had no idea that the simple name would suggest anything about my political beliefs. I mean, look at NationStates - there are hundreds of dictatorships, and hundreds of democracies here. I might be wrong, in which case I freely accept it, but isn't the whole point of this to have a bit of fun and not take things too seriously?

Yeah, that pretty well sums this country up. I agree with a lot of your points, but let me ask you: what happens after the revolution? Do you just become another police-state dictatorship?
No- under socialism, after an initial period where the vanguard establishes the new government, the people would start to take control of the country. We would not form a secret police, we would not kill dissenters or make them disappear, we would not support invading other countries to spread the revolution, but encouraging the working classes abroad to rise up and giving aid to those who choose to fight. Also, we have a policy of arming the working classes to ensure that the government does not become corrupt- its a bit difficult to fuck over your people when they're all armed and ready to form militias

I said the only true Fascist state was under Mussolini because, it was....he invented Fascism, and when questioned what Fascism was, he said 'Whatever you want it to be'...it was his ideology, he made it work. He had no plans for it to continue after his death - he simply didn't care. There was no 'Thousand Year Reich' in his eyes.

The reason why I am saying about this is because I intend to become a keen political student. I am very interested in politics, particularly those of the 20th century. Unfortunately due to a particularly lax education system, I haven't learned much yet - but I will be studying Stalin next year which I am very much looking forward to.

Perhaps calling my first nation here 'British Fascism' was a mistake. But I had no idea that the simple name would suggest anything about my political beliefs. I mean, look at NationStates - there are hundreds of dictatorships, and hundreds of democracies here. I might be wrong, in which case I freely accept it, but isn't the whole point of this to have a bit of fun and not take things too seriously?

Ah but this forum is where we come to debate politics, so it becomes a serious issue. I'm saying that fascism was a flawed ideology and created an authoritarian government (which you say was true fascism). We cannot allow groups that advocate this authoritarian suppression of human rights to come back into power.

Mussolini would have done better if he had kept on being a trade-unionist.

Ah but this forum is where we come to debate politics, so it becomes a serious issue. I'm saying that fascism was a flawed ideology and created an authoritarian government (which you say was true fascism). We cannot allow groups that advocate this authoritarian suppression of human rights to come back into power.

Mussolini would have done better if he had kept on being a trade-unionist.

I am not saying you are attempting to do any of the above, but looking at what you have previously said here, and from what I have heard about Revolutionary Left-Wing parties (Trotskyism, Bolshevism, Leninism, it all confuses me), it's what it says on the tin - revolutionary. What makes you think it is in the people's best interests in having the government system overthrown and in its place put a new one, without any form of democracy?

Surely if the people wanted it, they would vote for it in Parliament? And the rich wouldn't stand to benefit from this, being taxed so heavily - I mean, there are a lot of rich people in the world who constantly give to charity, and without these, I think it would be fair to say many charities would lose funding.

I am not saying you are attempting to do any of the above, but looking at what you have previously said here, and from what I have heard about Revolutionary Left-Wing parties (Trotskyism, Bolshevism, Leninism, it all confuses me), it's what it says on the tin - revolutionary. What makes you think it is in the people's best interests in having the government system overthrown and in its place put a new one, without any form of democracy?

Surely if the people wanted it, they would vote for it in Parliament? And the rich wouldn't stand to benefit from this, being taxed so heavily - I mean, there are a lot of rich people in the world who constantly give to charity, and without these, I think it would be fair to say many charities would lose funding.

That's the problem though. Corporations dictate the culture we live in and have turned a lot of people off from the idea of communism. Corporations also fund all the major political parties, as do rich people. The political parties that succeed tend to have the largest budget so you can understand why the working classes would have difficulty in creating a decent party.
Also, our system does have democracy in it, except its a different kind of democracy to the one youre used to living in. Trotsky said something along the lines of "Communism needs democracy as the human body needs oxygen" by that we mean that the soviets (groups of local workers' councils) which decide what needs to be produced, how the area should be run, etc. People would have a say in these.
Your charity issue is interesting. The rich people give to charity to alleviate their own guilt for having exploited so many people to make their money. Essentially under a socialist government the reasons why charities exist- disease, famine, etc. Would be dealt with by the government and not under-funded different organisations. Rich people would not be needed to fund us

That's the problem though. Corporations dictate the culture we live in and have turned a lot of people off from the idea of communism. Corporations also fund all the major political parties, as do rich people. The political parties that succeed tend to have the largest budget so you can understand why the working classes would have difficulty in creating a decent party.
Also, our system does have democracy in it, except its a different kind of democracy to the one youre used to living in. Trotsky said something along the lines of "Communism needs democracy as the human body needs oxygen" by that we mean that the soviets (groups of local workers' councils) which decide what needs to be produced, how the area should be run, etc. People would have a say in these.
Your charity issue is interesting. The rich people give to charity to alleviate their own guilt for having exploited so many people to make their money. Essentially under a socialist government the reasons why charities exist- disease, famine, etc. Would be dealt with by the government and not under-funded different organisations. Rich people would not be needed to fund us

That model is true in America where it is impossible to run for Senate without having massive financial backing, but in other democratic countries (let me take Britain for example) anybody can stand for election, for example in the city near I live there are more than one Socialist Workers Party (and similar names) standing for election not because they expect to win a seat, but just for the purpose of it. I say the reason why parties such as these do not gain votes is because they are too much centred on specific issues - in the SWP's case, the rights of the worker. Other political parties such as the Liberal Democrats tend to succeed more because they concentrate on a wider aspect of society.

Many people fear Socialism not because they are rich, power hungry capitalist bosses who want to corrupt anything - I am talking about normal people here, who don't want their society, their traditions, their culture overturned by a militant revolution which has happened in many places before and has ended with the country's economic collapse followed by yet another revolution. People see no way out.

I will be interested to read your response.

That model is true in America where it is impossible to run for Senate without having massive financial backing, but in other democratic countries (let me take Britain for example) anybody can stand for election, for example in the city near I live there are more than one Socialist Workers Party (and similar names) standing for election not because they expect to win a seat, but just for the purpose of it. I say the reason why parties such as these do not gain votes is because they are too much centred on specific issues - in the SWP's case, the rights of the worker. Other political parties such as the Liberal Democrats tend to succeed more because they concentrate on a wider aspect of society.

The problem with the SWP and RESPECT is that it is reformist in nature, pretends to be liberal, is run by a stalinist and gets its backing from mosques, yet they try to claim to be the largest trotskyite group in Britain. If you fail to secure a certain percentage of the vote you lose 500 pounds basically, and there have recently been suggestions that this figure should increase to 5 thousand. They're hardly encouraging the working classes to get involved.
Another problem is that left-wing alternatives are rarely mentioned in mainstream media- the party election broadcasts dont show anything further left than the greens. Also, the liberal democrats are not left-wing. They represent the petit-bourgeiosie and not the working class interests- they have numerous potential laws that are anti-trade union that they want to introduce.
Yet another problem with British politics is that Labour still have the backing of several large corrupt trade union leaders who encourage members to think that Blair is still representing the people when they turned their back on socialism a long time ago.


Many people fear Socialism not because they are rich, power hungry capitalist bosses who want to corrupt anything - I am talking about normal people here, who don't want their society, their traditions, their culture overturned by a militant revolution which has happened in many places before and has ended with the country's economic collapse followed by yet another revolution. People see no way out.

I will be interested to read your response.

These people who fear socialism are mainly the ruling classes who fear it for selfish reasons- primarily that they don't want to have their money and power taken away from them and be forced to actually work for a living. The working classes who fear socialism are usually those who the BNP et al have managed to brainwash into thinking that immigrants and not their bosses are the reason they have shit wages, and that singlemothers and refugees are the causes of crime. This sort of attitude can be overcome as was seen in the miner strikes where a lot of racial barriers were broken down in Northern England as blacks and whites stood on the same picket line fighting the rich people. In America they fear socialism because they have been told that all left-wingers support Stalinism, and this hatred of the leftwing was embedded in their brains since 1945.

There's another matter which I'd just like to clear up - who was Trotsky?

I'm not that knowledgeable about Russian history so I won't pretend to be....was Trotsky the Soviet originally intended to be leader but Stalin stepped in, or was he one of Lenin's inner circle? And what sets Trotskyism apart from the other Communist groups? How are they all different? (I know Stalinism is more 'extreme' than the others but that's about all I know).

There's another matter which I'd just like to clear up - who was Trotsky?

I'm not that knowledgeable about Russian history so I won't pretend to be....was Trotsky the Soviet originally intended to be leader but Stalin stepped in, or was he one of Lenin's inner circle? And what sets Trotskyism apart from the other Communist groups? How are they all different? (I know Stalinism is more 'extreme' than the others but that's about all I know).
Trotsky originally was a menshevik, but later joined the bolshevik party and led the red army to victory over the whites in the civil war and was one of the prominent members of the bolshevik party post-revolution. He was thought by many to be Lenin's natural successor but many feared he was the "napoleon bonaparte" of the revolution who may have led to a military dictatorship. Stalin managed to wrangle power away from him through different political alliances and had him exiled from the USSR than sent an agent to murder him in Mexico in 1940 (I think thats the year)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_trotsky is a pretty good simple biography.

Stalinists and Trots are essentially the 2 most prominent type of revolutionary communists (marxist-leninists). The Stalinists favour a more authoritarian government with as little democracy as possible and a lot of bureacracy. They also think you should establish socialism in one state and other countries will follow suit when they see you kicking major ass. They thought the Soviet Union was fucking good under Stalin.

Trotskyists criticise stalin for being too authoritarian and his restrictive social policies throught the Soviet Union (keeping homosexuality illegal, denying abortions, etc) and also criticise him for establishing satellite governments across the place. They also say that the way he ran the government meant that ultimately he had the final say in all matter and democracy was effectively eliminated from all aspects of life. Trotskyists argue for a permanent revolution meaning that you need to keep fermenting working-class revolutions across different countries because otherwise you will be surrounded by hostile capitalist nations. There is a difference in views on the Soviet Union- some say it was state capitalist, others (the more 'orthodox')that it was, as trotsky said, a "degenerated workers state"

Because thats the culture that they live under at the moment its very hard to break the mindset that they have grown up experiencing.

So? They caused the problem, they end it.

We shouldn't help them as in colonise them and force them to stop it but eventually we'd hope to incorporate them, and all people, into a socialist state which would discourage the negative way people view each other.

Why should you instill your socialist values into them? What if they don't want you to?

Ending this discriminatory system would lead to an end of these barbaric practices.

They don't see it as barbaric, and they're doing it to their own people. Why don't they have sovereignty to their own selves?

Alright chill out, Adolf

If you find something offensive, link it with Hitler. That's the popular method of today.

OTHER ISSUES
*Fascist, racist, Neo-Nazi and far-right parties to be outlawed
*Complete freedom of speech except for the above groups. Homo/Heterophobic, Misogynistic, anti-male and religiously intolerant public speakers will face fines/ jail services.
*Outlaw the holding of second homes
*Open all borders and allow complete freedom of movement, in compliance with the UN charter of human rights

Perhaps it should be changed to "*Complete freedom of speech except for the above groups. Homo/Heterophobic, Misogynistic, sexist and religiously intolerant public speakers will face fines/ jail services." Women are entitled to equal protection under the law - and that includes protection from hate-speech.

Also, what about matters of government, considering you are a revolutionary and therefore would have to dispose of much of the current system?

Heh I like it!

Complete freedom of speech except...

Heh. If there are exceptions than it's not exactly complete isn't it?

Keep up the good work, it's hilarious!

I have a question. Why do you restrict freedoms from certain groups?

I have a question. Why do you restrict freedoms from certain groups?
You mean the fash?
Several reasons-
They promote an ideology which directs hatred at groups who cannot defend themselves from the attacks
Any society which allows racist governments in power ends up supporting capitalism
If they came to power, theyd do the exact same thing to us, but theyd use torture and violence

Perhaps it should be changed to "*Complete freedom of speech except for the above groups. Homo/Heterophobic, Misogynistic, sexist and religiously intolerant public speakers will face fines/ jail services." Women are entitled to equal protection under the law - and that includes protection from hate-speech.

Also, what about matters of government, considering you are a revolutionary and therefore would have to dispose of much of the current system?
Well we say that while capitalism is the current system, we have to try and work within it until such a time comes when a revolution is possible when we can claim power. We will completely restructure government based on a system of local workers' councils and representatives of these councils convening. Our system will be one of democratic centralism (I think I've said democratic centralism more times in the past three days than ever before in my life)

You mean the fash?
Several reasons-
[quote]
They promote an ideology which directs hatred at groups who cannot defend themselves from the attacks

You mean minorities are completely helpless? And what kind of 'attacks'?

Any society which allows racist governments in power ends up supporting capitalism

Go take a nice long look at the history of the world and you'll find anti-racism is mostly a modern phenomenon, as is capitalism.

There is no correlation between capitalism and racism.

If they came to power, theyd do the exact same thing to us, but theyd use torture and violence

Two wrongs make a right fallacy?

Where is the proof that "fascists/national socialists/everybody else" would torture you? Communist nations don't have the best track record for torturing either, heh.

You mean minorities are completely helpless? And what kind of 'attacks'?
No but they verbally attack groups who cannot change what they are for insignificant issues such as skin colour. They also physically attack these groups on different occassions and any form of black/asian self defence is often attacked by the media (see the bradford riots)



Go take a nice long look at the history of the world and you'll find anti-racism is mostly a modern phenomenon, as is capitalism.

There is no correlation between capitalism and racism.

Oh really? Why then has modern racism (based mainly on falsified science) been around since the mid-1750s when Britain really started trying to increase her Empires. The rich thought it would be best to divide up the workers based on race so that the whites would look down on the blacks and asians as 'savages' who needed to be tamed.
Before this point there was racism, I'm not gonna deny that, but that was mostly based on the primitive human fear of that which is different to us. There was no organised form and consequently collapsed pretty quickly which led to many examples of white and black integration.


Two wrongs make a right fallacy?

Where is the proof that "fascists/national socialists/everybody else" would torture you? Communist nations don't have the best track record for torturing either, heh.

Adolf Hitler, Franco, Mussolini- all had left-wingers assasinated, imprisoned or mass exsecuted.

Authoritarian communist states don't have a good history with torture, but we follow a different belief system to those communists and we would do things a little different.

bump. vote for us, we rock

No but they verbally attack groups who cannot change what they are for insignificant issues such as skin colour. They also physically attack these groups on different occassions and any form of black/asian self defence is often attacked by the media (see the bradford riots)

Minorities cannot be racist nor start racial confrontations, only whites.

The media kisses up to minorities. They refuse to report black on white hate crimes even though such crimes are by far more prevalent.

Oh really? Why then has modern racism (based mainly on falsified science) been around since the mid-1750s when Britain really started trying to increase her Empires. The rich thought it would be best to divide up the workers based on race so that the whites would look down on the blacks and asians as 'savages' who needed to be tamed.

What about India and it's ancient caste system?

Before this point there was racism, I'm not gonna deny that, but that was mostly based on the primitive human fear of that which is different to us. There was no organised form and consequently collapsed pretty quickly which led to many examples of white and black integration.

Give me examples of these pre-capitalist white and black integrations.

Adolf Hitler, Franco, Mussolini- all had left-wingers assasinated, imprisoned or mass exsecuted.

Authoritarian communist states don't have a good history with torture, but we follow a different belief system to those communists and we would do things a little different.

How so? Throw 'fascists' in the gulags, but with kindness?

Minorities cannot be racist nor start racial confrontations, only whites.

The media kisses up to minorities. They refuse to report black on white hate crimes even though such crimes are by far more prevalent.

That's ridiculous. I defy you to find me any evidence of that which doesn't come from stormfront or its related sites. I dont think you'll find instutionalised racism against whites from the police force.


What about India and it's ancient caste system?

Same thing, different part of the world. They needed an excuse to exploit some people for economic gain and lacking science at the time, they based it on religion. Once again the rich come out on top


Give me examples of these pre-capitalist white and black integrations.

I was talking about the white working classes who mixed with freed slaves in the London underworld. Both were looked down upon in society and found each other as an ally. The concept of racism was used to break them up.


How so? Throw 'fascists' in the gulags, but with kindness?
Ha ha. No. Not allow any of their political parties to exist, still punish people for trying to turn others to their violent, hateful beliefs, but not physically brutalise them or murder them. Show them evidence that racism is bullshit, imprison them briefly, fine them, etc

What about India and it's ancient caste system?


"Ancient" caste system? The Brits formalised the caste system and made it in something rigid, because it suited their purpose.

"Ancient" caste system? The Brits formalised the caste system and made it in something rigid, because it suited their purpose.
See, even the reformists understand how capitalism works

I'd support this, definately, you have my vote.

I'd support this, definately, you have my vote.
Thankyou comrade. Nice to see there are some revolutionaries on the forum

bump. Any revo trots about?

You probably haven't heard of us, seeing as how we only have one member. Our lack of exposure can be directly related to the "clique culture" that currently runs rampant throughout the forums and the fact that the leaders of pretty much all major parties are members of the clique. Plus they have better graphics. Bastards.

http://img182.echo.cx/img182/6356/rtp3cg.jpg

TRANSITIONAL PARTY
*We need to make clear that this party is not reformist. We do not think true socialism can be achieved under the current system of democracy which is based on personality rather than skill. This party only exists to gain transitional demands for the workers.
*While other left-wing parties have good intentions, we argue that their attempts to change the system from within can only end in failure as they do not understand the nature of the capitalist state
*The main objective of this party is to form a vanguard for the revolution while simultaneously managing to temporarily alleviate the huge suffering of the working classes.
*Please take this into account as the rest of the manifesto is dealing primarily with our objectives within parliament as opposed to post-revolutionary activities

ECONOMY
*Nationalise all major industries and all those which are essential to the survival of human beings
*The minimum wage is to be raised to the level that the EU has currently deemed acceptable of £7.50 an hour
*Increase taxes on the rich and lower them on the poor
*Hand more power over to the trade unions- allow secondary picketing, etc.
*Pensions, money given to asylum seekers and the dole to be increased to a basic standard of living (at the billionaires’ expense)
*Crackdown on corporate criminals and those that try to avoid corporate taxes. If the company/ owners threaten to leave the country, their ban accounts will be frozen.

PUBLIC SERVICES
*Abolish private hospitals and put all healthcare under government control
*Prohibit the private sale of medicine and instead have pharmacies run by the state
*Legalise euthanasia
*Allow abortion up until 20 weeks for any reason. After that period only if the baby poses a physical threat to the mother will abortion be permitted
*Free contraception for all
*The government must abolish private schools and allow anybody to use them
*Religious and gender segregated schooling must end
*Religion/ philosophy must be taught to all children in a non-biased manner
*University education will be made free
*The army will be significantly reduced as we will stop sending troops to kill and die in imperialist wars
*The police must have the powers it has been given since September 11th, 2001 repealed. *Those police who are still unarmed will not be given guns as there are already enough cases of police brutality.

DRUGS
*Cannabis, ecstasy, speed, LSD, magic mushrooms and any “soft drugs” to be legalised and sold by licensed proprietors to over 16’s.
*“Hard drugs” to be legalised and controlled by the state, but they can only be taken in licensed, state-operated centres.
*Rehab to be available, free of cost, to anybody who wants it
*All those in jail for dealing/possessing drugs to be freed

OTHER ISSUES
*Fascist, racist, Neo-Nazi and far-right parties to be outlawed
*Complete freedom of speech except for the above groups. Homo/Heterophobic, Misogynistic, anti-male and religiously intolerant public speakers will face fines/ jail services.
*Outlaw the holding of second homes
*Open all borders and allow complete freedom of movement, in compliance with the UN charter of human rights


The manifesto may not be perfect, but considering I just did that in half an hour I think it’s alright. Anybody have any suggestions just let me know

You are all nuts...

Seriously, as an anarchist I find your policies completely unacceptable. Sorry.

You are all nuts...

Seriously, as an anarchist I find your policies completely unacceptable. Sorry.

You would, anarchist

You would, anarchist

If that is meant to be an insult then it really isn't that insulting, person!

If that is meant to be an insult then it really isn't that insulting, person!
Its not an insult, you just wouldnt go for trotskyism as it embraces vanguardism.

Its not an insult, you just wouldnt go for trotskyism as it embraces vanguardism.

Yes, and I would oppose any laws to do with Freedom of Speech particularly.

Yes, and I would oppose any laws to do with Freedom of Speech particularly.
Not an anti fascist action fan then?

That's ridiculous. I defy you to find me any evidence of that which doesn't come from stormfront or its related sites. I dont think you'll find instutionalised racism against whites from the police force.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/vvr98.txt

"More than 6 in 10 persons in local jails in 2002 were racial or ethnic minorities, unchanged from 1996."

"Jail Inmates: An estimated 40% were black; 19%, Hispanic, 1% American Indian; 1% Asian; and 3% of more than one race/ethnicity."

Blacks make up only 10% of the US population.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm

"Blacks were 7 times more likely than whites to commit homicide in 2002"

Same thing, different part of the world. They needed an excuse to exploit some people for economic gain and lacking science at the time, they based it on religion. Once again the rich come out on top

It has nothing to do with the British, capitalism, and whites. Yet it is 'racism.'

I was talking about the white working classes who mixed with freed slaves in the London underworld. Both were looked down upon in society and found each other as an ally. The concept of racism was used to break them up.

Yeah, there was a state sponsored program used to brainwash whites into hating the black man.

Ha ha. No. Not allow any of their political parties to exist, still punish people for trying to turn others to their violent, hateful beliefs, but not physically brutalise them or murder them. Show them evidence that racism is bullshit, imprison them briefly, fine them, etc

I see. Throw people in jail and confiscate property for having a different belief system. Perhaps throw them in labor camps while we're at it?

What if they refuse to follow your little game? Are they imprisoned forever?

I ask of you: what is freedom if the only freedom granted is to agree with you?


"Ancient" caste system? The Brits formalised the caste system and made it in something rigid, because it suited their purpose.

http://www.raceandhistory.com/historicalviews/casteindia.htm

"Traditionalscholarship has described this more than 2,000-year-old system within"

http://codesign.scu.edu/hinduism/

"This system dates almost 3000 years back and was formed based on the need to form a social order in ancient India."

You must be humiliated. ;)

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/vvr98.txt

"More than 6 in 10 persons in local jails in 2002 were racial or ethnic minorities, unchanged from 1996."

"Jail Inmates: An estimated 40% were black; 19%, Hispanic, 1% American Indian; 1% Asian; and 3% of more than one race/ethnicity."

Blacks make up only 10% of the US population.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm

"Blacks were 7 times more likely than whites to commit homicide in 2002"

I didn't say that. You said that they were more likely to commit racially based crimes and I said that was false. You then provide this evidence which highlights the racism in the police force and/or the the poverty that the black community still wallows in. I also dont think the gangster culture helps


It has nothing to do with the British, capitalism, and whites. Yet it is 'racism.'

Wrong it has alot to do with economic exploitation which is paramount to capitalism


Yeah, there was a state sponsored program used to brainwash whites into hating the black man.

At last you get something partially right! The rich decided that this union was promoting too much of a strong opposition so filled the newspapers with tales of negroes doing eeeeeeviilllll foreign things and began this falsified science program which attempted to show white people that they were in fact superior to the blacks.


I see. Throw people in jail and confiscate property for having a different belief system. Perhaps throw them in labor camps while we're at it?

Not for having a different belief system to us, freedom of speech will still be granted to capitalists, anarchists, etc but the spreading of this dangerous hatred will not be tolerated


What if they refuse to follow your little game? Are they imprisoned forever?

As long as they dont say anything in public or try to organise we don't give two shits about them ultimately


I ask of you: what is freedom if the only freedom granted is to agree with you?

Freedom is granted to other groups, as I have explained and as you have ignored.


http://www.raceandhistory.com/historicalviews/casteindia.htm

"Traditionalscholarship has described this more than 2,000-year-old system within"

http://codesign.scu.edu/hinduism/

"This system dates almost 3000 years back and was formed based on the need to form a social order in ancient India."

Right, formed for economic exploitation. The system was flexible, however, and the British colonialists embedded it into the law

You must be humiliated. ;)
Not really, I've just enjoyed tearing apart your krypto-fascist bullshit ;)

New poster inspired by recent debate

http://img251.echo.cx/img251/882/bashthefash1df.jpg

Another new poster and a shameless bump

http://img232.echo.cx/img232/4370/homeless1ew.jpg

You must be humiliated. ;)

Go back and read carefully what I said. I never said they invented it. Do read properly if you're going to comment. :p

http://img164.echo.cx/img164/1472/greetings6pp.jpg

Go back and read carefully what I said. I never said they invented it. Do read properly if you're going to comment. :p
You reckon that guy was a troll or a fash?

http://img39.echo.cx/img39/3366/openborders4lc.jpg

http://img251.echo.cx/img251/9081/che2fm.jpg

"The Revolutionary Trotskyist Party" sounds like "The Nazi Hitlerite Party". Trotsky was one of the worst mass murderers in the history of mankind (ranking probably about right next to Hitler). So people who name their party after him are subhuman bastards and should be shunned by all civilized people.

Here you go, Dhomme...so you don't feel left out. :p

http://armageddonproject.com/ftpdrop/rtp1.gif

"The Revolutionary Trotskyist Party" sounds like "The Nazi Hitlerite Party". Trotsky was one of the worst mass murderers in the history of mankind (ranking probably about right next to Hitler). So people who name their party after him are subhuman bastards and should be shunned by all civilized people.

I'm sorry but where's your proof of this? You can't just come in here, call us "subhuman" without any sort of evidence and compare us to the nazis. Calling people subhuman, where have I heard that before....

And Tex.... I love you man. I don't care about the selfishness. That poster fucking rocks

http://img83.echo.cx/img83/2121/ohgodyes0qn.jpg

This is it. I'm going to bed. No more canvassing. When I wake up the vote will be decided.

Before I go sleep heres 5 reasons to vote for us

1) We've put out the best damn campaign posters
2) Nobody else has advocated a revolution
3) Capitalism is exploitative
4) Fascists, Nazis and Racists should have no say in a civilised society
5) We have stood by the outcasts- immigrants, women, the homeless, gays, drug users and ethnic minorities for the past 80 years when nobody else would.

yeah, come on guys, we desperately need some more votes, we are the most economically liberal, and least authoritarian on the political landscape, we desperately need votes.

Well, lads and ladies, the RTP managed to secure a seat and even beat MOBRA by 9 votes which was good considering we were neck and neck for a couple of days. I'd like to thank everybody who voted for us and everybody who campaigned/debated on our behalf (Saxnot, Psov, Workers Militias, I'm looking your way)

congradulations on your seat, comrade!

http://www.churchill-society-london.org.uk/Berlin.jpg

congradulations on your seat, comrade!

http://www.churchill-society-london.org.uk/Berlin.jpg

Good work on your seats as well, boys

Well done on your victory. I am happy for you. ;)

Well done on your victory. I am happy for you. ;)

Cheers man, sorry you failed to get a seat. Better luck with the next campaign.

btw I'll never forget that night with the handcuffs and the ice cream

Not an anti fascist action fan then?

No, as I believe individual liberty remains the cornerstone of any true democracy and individuals must not be prevented from saying what they wish, no matter how groteqsue or silly their opinion.

I urge all anarchists, libertarians and liberals to refrain from supporting such a political party with its purely tyrannical ideals.

No, as I believe individual liberty remains the cornerstone of any true democracy and individuals must not be prevented from saying what they wish, no matter how groteqsue or silly their opinion.

I urge all anarchists, libertarians and liberals to refrain from supporting such a political party with its purely tyrannical ideals.

First of all- we're not a party for anarchist, libertarians or liberals. We're a party of Marxists.

Senondly- We do not have tyrannical ideals. Our opposition to fascists is based in their opposition to democracy and the random destructive acts of violence that they utilise. They have a political agenda which we must stop through political methods and a physical agenda which has to be stopped physically.

http://img274.echo.cx/img274/7949/loser3px.jpg

http://www.hlj.me.uk/udcp%206.jpg

blah. god i'm bored.

If ya wanna waste some more time, you could make a poster saying my party was completely fucked over. :D

If ya wanna waste some more time, you could make a poster saying my party was completely fucked over. :D
lol :p

lol :p

Seriously, go ahead and make me one.

http://www.hlj.me.uk/poof.jpg

heh :D

http://www.hlj.me.uk/udcp%206.jpg

blah. god i'm bored.

Do you not think it's ironic that you have a revolutionary party on your poster, eh menshevik?

http://www.hlj.me.uk/poof.jpg

heh :D
Nice. :D

Do you not think it's ironic that you have a revolutionary party on your poster, eh menshevik?
i was waiting for someone to say that.

my reply: its just a poster!

i was waiting for someone to say that.

my reply: its just a poster!

Go back to the dustbin of history, boy

DHomme,
I wish to join. I agree with almost every point in the RTP manifesto and agree with it more than the UDCP's (although that does make some good points I disagree with a few of their points).

As a true worker from the North East of England (I'm a plumber) I feel that the capitalist society we live in is wrong, as I have seen the effects it has on the Working class. The eploitation of the skills that many of us proles have is injust!

Two years ago I would proudly say that Capitalism is great and that I was a lover of America and believed in the religion of the dollar. Now however I have freed my mind from the psycological imprisonment that the rich had enslaved me with and I am freeing others around me.

Marx was right, the workers are at boiling point ( :headbang: ), and soon, very soon, they will explode! ( :mp5: )

d'homme, can you teach us revolutionaries some stuff?

can you join our forum at www.sociocommunist.proboards56.com and teach us stuff please?

CALLING ALL COMMIES. THE RTP NEEDS YOU
Are you a revolutionary socialist?
Are you a supporter or the RTP or agree with our principles?
Are you ready to make a qualitative change and not just a quantative one?

Then you CAN make a difference!
Join the RTP today! Make suggestions for the manifesto! Design and create propaganda!

United we are strong and can claim another victory in the following election

No offense, Trotsky was a great guy and all, but won't this just make the Communists LESS unified? I mean, Lenin and Trotsky were good friends, Trotsky just stressed freedom and democracy a bit more. I think all of this party's members should join the nationstates communist party (the udcp or something). O, and happy Labor Day Comrades! Workers of the world unite!

No offense, Trotsky was a great guy and all, but won't this just make the Communists LESS unified? I mean, Lenin and Trotsky were good friends, Trotsky just stressed freedom and democracy a bit more. I think all of this party's members should join the nationstates communist party (the udcp or something). O, and happy Labor Day Comrades! Workers of the world unite!

Okay, so we should give up on actual communism (as in revolutionary) and move towards democratic socialism like the second international?I think not. This is a party of militant opposition towards capitalism that understands the violent nature of the state and the need for a class war. While we may be in similar positions on the political compass we have very different methods and ideas.

Fools. Communism is astoundingly open to exploitation. Why do you think it always needs enforcing? You won't find the answers there, my friends.....

Fools. Communism is astoundingly open to exploitation. Why do you think it always needs enforcing? You won't find the answers there, my friends.....

Very constructive.

Communism may have been about violence in the 19th and 20th century, but look what good that did. I say we teach the public our ideals, use tactics such as civil disobediance, and get our supporters elected in local poisitions. Did the black panthers win the fight for African American rights? I think not, it was peaceful groups such as the NAACP. Violence won't solve anything Comrades.

Communism may have been about violence in the 19th and 20th century, but look what good that did. I say we teach the public our ideals, use tactics such as civil disobediance, and get our supporters elected in local poisitions. Did the black panthers win the fight for African American rights? I think not, it was peaceful groups such as the NAACP. Violence won't solve anything Comrades.

Oh I'm sorry. I didn't realise the 1 in 3 black men who get arrested never had it so good. What about the still economically exploited minorities who sitll live in utter poverty. Oh and the NAACP has really done well to achieve socialism within America so far.

Please, turning away from a violent struggle against capitalism is the turning away from communism in itself. You completely ignore the concept of dialectics which means turning your back on Engels. You ignore the teachings of Lenin on how a party should be run. You ignore two of the most important thinkers within the left-wing movement and move towards centrism.

Just because I'm a peace-loving Buddhist does not mean I am not a Marxist. I am still for a revolution, just not a violent one. People will come to hate communism even more if you begin to kill your way to power. Do you want your ideals to join hand-in-hand with Stalinism and Maoism?

Just because I'm a peace-loving Buddhist does not mean I am not a Marxist. I am still for a revolution, just not a violent one.
Oh, so how shall we have our revolution? With tea and cucumber sandwiches?

Look, truth is violence is a horrible thing that should be a last resort, but the fact is that if we are to truly destroy the bourgeoisie state machine, we will have to combat with the bourgeoisie who will do anything to hold onto power. The masses' victory can only come at the loss by the minority

People will come to hate communism even more if you begin to kill your way to power.

Why does nobody seem to get the idea that a revolution comes from within the people? It's not a small guerilla group that seizes power, it is a mass movement smashing every existing social instition and replacing them with tools of their own power

Do you want your ideals to join hand-in-hand with Stalinism and Maoism?
Im not even gonna get started on just how different trots are from these other fuckwits. Im going to bed. May try tomorrow

bump bump
help the party.

Anybody have any suggestions just let me know
Give up now while there's still hope for you

Give up now while there's still hope for you

Hmmm, maybe I should make that "non-useless" suggestions

Im gonna have to bump this again

bump. ARGH Where are all the trotskyists?

bump. ARGH Where are all the trotskyists?

Perhaps they saw the light? ;)

bump. ARGH Where are all the trotskyists?
Perhaps we are on vacation.

If I'm not mistaken, wasn't Trotsky one of the first real Neocons?

If I'm not mistaken, wasn't Trotsky one of the first real Neocons?

Care to explain?

the ever popular BUMP is in effect

Look, now we have a picture!

http://img182.echo.cx/img182/6356/rtp3cg.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)

I would like to point out that it is HIGHLY UNLIKELY Che Guevara would have voted for a Trotskist Party - Lenin and Marx, you would get away with, considering that they were long dead by the 1930s. But Guevara?! Come on!

Yeah, but hes the most memorable face of communism and plus we're appealing to all revolutionary elements with this party. Anybody who recognises that bourgeoisie democracy must be overthrown and cannot be worked within to achieve pure socialism

Yeah, but hes the most memorable face of communism and plus we're appealing to all revolutionary elements with this party. Anybody who recognises that bourgeoisie democracy must be overthrown and cannot be worked within to achieve pure socialism
I realize I might be opening an old wound, but why is it you're endorsing "burgeois" democracy by standing in its elections (not to say that you should not, just wondering)?
I think that Trotski (or Trotsky, or whatever) would have enforced something quite simmilar to what Stalin did, were he not met by Stalin himself. After all, he backed all the beaurocratic structures enforced in Lenin's time. I would tend to agree with him that these became much worse when won by the new Stalinist class with its vision of a "Vozhd", but still...

Not many communists actually support armed revolution anymore, unless they live in 3rd world country. We've realized killing is unnesessary and our goals can be met without violence. My region, the USSR, which is predominantly communist, agrees with me. Please consider our points, just because it may take an additional 30 or so years instead of an immediate violent revolution, the outcome would be much better.

I realize I might be opening an old wound, but why is it you're endorsing "burgeois" democracy by standing in its elections (not to say that you should not, just wondering)?
It explains why we're standing in the first post on this thread. We know we're not gonna achieve socialism through this system but if we can better the workers' conditions through gaining power then theres nothing wrong with it.

I think that Trotski (or Trotsky, or whatever) would have enforced something quite simmilar to what Stalin did, were he not met by Stalin himself. After all, he backed all the beaurocratic structures enforced in Lenin's time. I would tend to agree with him that these became much worse when won by the new Stalinist class with its vision of a "Vozhd", but still...
Trotsky also advocated work-place democracy and supporting a permanent revolution because he realised that otherwise a totalitarian state would be created wherein the workers would have no control.

Not many communists actually support armed revolution anymore, unless they live in 3rd world country. We've realized killing is unnesessary and our goals can be met without violence. My region, the USSR, which is predominantly communist, agrees with me. Please consider our points, just because it may take an additional 30 or so years instead of an immediate violent revolution, the outcome would be much better.

That's because since the fall of the eastern bloc many left-wingers have been desperate to not be associate with any of those 'nasty revolutionaries' and many have become greens or social-democrats (look up 'eurocommunism'). However, a true communist (as in somebody who has read anything my Marx) would realise that he advocates a people's revolution and he has a damn good reason to do that. Within the middle-class system we can only make minimal changes to the government (known as quantitative changes). We seek to achieve socialism, which is such a huge change it cannot even be compared with the petty changes being made now.

Also we cannot rely upon top-down socialism- the workers have to liberate themselves and not just rely on some politicians to do it for them. If that happens there will be no genuine change in society as the people haven't developed a true socialist consciousness yet

Trotsky also advocated work-place democracy and supporting a permanent revolution because he realised that otherwise a totalitarian state would be created wherein the workers would have no control.
Yes and no. He did support the idea of "councils", but not as a syndicalist would do it. It was mostly his way of explain why he differed from Stalin.
And it didn't mean much in practice. After all, he was responsible for the bloody purges against other socialist parties and initiatives which advocated council communism. Not only that: he crushed the attempt to do just that in Kronstadt, even though the marines thought they were acting according to his directives.
Fact is that the real opposition to the Soviets came from the working-class environment - people who had gained something in February, and were governing Russia before November (Social Revolutionaries, "Mensheviks", the Bund, rural initiatives, left nationalists etc.).

Yes and no. He did support the idea of "councils", but not as a syndicalist would do it. It was mostly his way of explain why he differed from Stalin.
Thats ridiculous. Considering these two men were so frequently at loggerheads how can you honestyl say that they were exactly the same?

And it didn't mean much in practice. After all, he was responsible for the bloody purges against other socialist parties and initiatives which advocated council communism.

The point was that political party meant nothing. They were free to join the bolsheviks and join the process of democratic centralism, instead of just making pointless sneers

Not only that: he crushed the attempt to do just that in Kronstadt, even though the marines thought they were acting according to his directives.
Kronstadt was actually basically a bunch of anarchist-syndicalists who, quite literally, took up arms against the workers' state. They threatened violence, Trotsky had to respond.

Fact is that the real opposition to the Soviets came from the working-class environment - people who had gained something in February, and were governing Russia before November (Social Revolutionaries, "Mensheviks", the Bund, rural initiatives, left nationalists etc.).
The working-class gained nothing from the february revolution except a new group of overlords. They gained a system whereby the bourgeoisie were running the show.
Hmmm those who took power in february didn't like a working class revolution? Says something about their communist credentials, doesn't it?

Thats ridiculous. Considering these two men were so frequently at loggerheads how can you honestyl say that they were exactly the same?
No, not "exactly" (and yes, I do think that Trotski would've been better). However, Trotski was no stranger to persecution and murder. In fact, he initiated it according to Lenin's directives.

The point was that political party meant nothing. They were free to join the bolsheviks and join the process of democratic centralism, instead of just making pointless sneers
"Democratc centralism" is an absurd euphemism for a tight grip on society. The Bolsheviks were opposed to any popular initiative: "all power to the Soviets" was a blatant lie - the workers already had power in councils since February, the councils were the main opposition to the Bolshevik coup, and Lenin was quick to awknowledge that he had lied.

Kronstadt was actually basically a bunch of anarchist-syndicalists who, quite literally, took up arms against the workers' state. They threatened violence, Trotsky had to respond.
They were grouped in several parties, all working-class, some were even Bolshevik. They had expected the Bolsheviks to keep their promise, and they were deprieved of anything. Incidentally, most of them had been amongst the few to participate in the seizure of Petrograd.

The working-class gained nothing from the february revolution except a new group of overlords. They gained a system whereby the bourgeoisie were running the show.
Hmmm those who took power in february didn't like a working class revolution? Says something about their communist credentials, doesn't it?
Again, THE COUNCILS were running the show, and they were the backbone for a democracy that would satisfy any trotskite (were it not for Trotski's hypocrital self-justyfing).
Please, inform yourself. Even in the Civil War, most of those who opposed the Bolsheviks were in the Socialist spectrum - no, not just "reformists" (which I guess you'd consider "burgeois"), but also ardent revolutionaries in the Russian tradition. Even nationalists (of oppressed nationalities, i.e.: not Russian) can prove my point: to counter them, Lenin offered the chance for seccesion - as soon as Russia was stabilized, that vanished into thin air.
Also, look at revolutionaries in Central Europe. Rosa Luxemburg, Liebknecht and some others carried them - but they DISAGREED with Lenin, no matter what propaganda has said.

DRUGS
*Cannabis, ecstasy, speed, LSD, magic mushrooms and any “soft drugs” to be legalised and sold by licensed proprietors to over 16’s.
*“Hard drugs” to be legalised and controlled by the state, but they can only be taken in licensed, state-operated centres.
*Rehab to be available, free of cost, to anybody who wants it
*All those in jail for dealing/possessing drugs to be freed I have to question this. Opiate to be the opiate of the masses?

"Democratc centralism" is an absurd euphemism for a tight grip on society. The Bolsheviks were opposed to any popular initiative: "all power to the Soviets" was a blatant lie - the workers already had power in councils since February, the councils were the main opposition to the Bolshevik coup, and Lenin was quick to awknowledge that he had lied.

No, the power was in the hands of the provisional government which was essentially a liberal-capitalist government in the making. The councils were pro-revolution as frequently they were run by people in the bolshevik party after the end of the summer/early autumn.


They were grouped in several parties, all working-class, some were even Bolshevik. They had expected the Bolsheviks to keep their promise, and they were deprieved of anything. Incidentally, most of them had been amongst the few to participate in the seizure of Petrograd.
Unfortunately, you are ignoring their demands which are all typical gripes of anarchists from this time which suggests it was an anarchist-dominated/led rebellion. Yes they were once revolutionary socialists but this soon stopped after they felt the suffering from the civil war (which was not the fault of the bolsheviks) and decided they wanted market liberalisation


Again, THE COUNCILS were running the show, and they were the backbone for a democracy that would satisfy any trotskite (were it not for Trotski's hypocrital self-justyfing).
Okay then, if they were genuinely anti-october revolution then why was the petrograd soviet governing revolutionary activities? Why did they say that the workers' allegiance should not be to the provisional government but to the soviets?


Please, inform yourself. Even in the Civil War, most of those who opposed the Bolsheviks were in the Socialist spectrum - no, not just "reformists" (which I guess you'd consider "burgeois"), but also ardent revolutionaries in the Russian tradition.

I know! The Mensheviks showed their true colours by fighting for capitalism and against socialism! And you consider them revolutionary! :D


Even nationalists (of oppressed nationalities, i.e.: not Russian) can prove my point: to counter them, Lenin offered the chance for seccesion - as soon as Russia was stabilized, that vanished into thin air.
Also, look at revolutionaries in Central Europe. Rosa Luxemburg, Liebknecht and some others carried them - but they DISAGREED with Lenin, no matter what propaganda has said.
The tension between Rosa and Lenin was because Lenin offered several nations self-determination, which she didn't approve of. However, it was nothing but a bargaining tool. I don't see the problem with that. What's more important in the long run- the petty nationalism of one country or a worldwide socialist government?

I have to question this. Opiate to be the opiate of the masses?

It's not like we're going to force people to take it or encourage them to take it. It's ultimately up to each individual what they decide to put in their body and I don't feel that the state has any right to intrude upon that decision

No, the power was in the hands of the provisional government which was essentially a liberal-capitalist government in the making. The councils were pro-revolution as frequently they were run by people in the bolshevik party after the end of the summer/early autumn.
The government was esentially social-democratic (various parties). So were the Soviets. And the "Great Revolution" is a myth - it was con-artistry on a small-scale, applied to a society that was shaken by shocks.
Reactonary elemants (Kornilov and the likes) behaved just like the Bolsheviks.

Unfortunately, you are ignoring their demands which are all typical gripes of anarchists from this time which suggests it was an anarchist-dominated/led rebellion. Yes they were once revolutionary socialists but this soon stopped after they felt the suffering from the civil war (which was not the fault of the bolsheviks) and decided they wanted market liberalisation
Again, I don't think they were more illegitimate than the Bolsheviks. But, if a free market is such a crime, why did Lenin bring it back in the twenties. (Wait: I remember that Trotski and Stalin had a similar attitude towards the NEP - which would've led Trotski to endorse at least some of Stalin's genocide).

Okay then, if they were genuinely anti-october revolution then why was the petrograd soviet governing revolutionary activities? Why did they say that the workers' allegiance should not be to the provisional government but to the soviets?
Nobody said that, except for a bunch of mercenaries in Petrograd and only there. A bunch indeed... the "storming" of the Winter Palace (defended by women and kids) involved about 100 people or something. And they drank themselvas to sleep, and got lost in the halls.

I know! The Mensheviks showed their true colours by fighting for capitalism and against socialism! And you consider them revolutionary! :D
Again, they would fall into your category as "reformists" (which is not a bad thing, if you ask me). What I meant was the Social Revolutionaries and other revolutionary factions (incidentally, the ones that fought oppresion in Russia FROM Russia, not Switzerland - where they could've waited for the Kaizer to use them for his convenience).

The tension between Rosa and Lenin was because Lenin offered several nations self-determination, which she didn't approve of. However, it was nothing but a bargaining tool. I don't see the problem with that. What's more important in the long run- the petty nationalism of one country or a worldwide socialist government?
No. The real difference is that, were it not for what they called "special conditions", the German socialists would've been "reformists" (although, in a disagreement with the main wing that turned bloody).

The government was esentially social-democratic (various parties). So were the Soviets. And the "Great Revolution" is a myth - it was con-artistry on a small-scale, applied to a society that was shaken by shocks.
Reactonary elemants (Kornilov and the likes) behaved just like the Bolsheviks.
Social-democratic is STILL capitalist. I don't know how much I have to emphasise this. There is still the system of wage-slavery and Lenin saw this and said it should be overthrown.


Again, I don't think they were more illegitimate than the Bolsheviks. But, if a free market is such a crime, why did Lenin bring it back in the twenties. (Wait: I remember that Trotski and Stalin had a similar attitude towards the NEP - which would've led Trotski to endorse at least some of Stalin's genocide).

Lenin brought it back because the country's economy had been shot thanks to the civil war and the intervention of all those nice little imperialists. Im not entirely sure where I stand on it to be quite frank.
Okay, so Trotsky and Stalin had some similarities of opinion on one issue. How does this make Trotsky a supporter of Stalin's genocide now? Oh wait, that's right. It doesn't and you're lieing.


Nobody said that, except for a bunch of mercenaries in Petrograd and only there. A bunch indeed... the "storming" of the Winter Palace (defended by women and kids) involved about 100 people or something. And they drank themselvas to sleep, and got lost in the halls.

It was guarded by so few people as most of the army had abandoned the provisional government and sided with the revolutionaries.
Oh no! It was a crack squad who stormed the palace! That's bad how? And I defy you not to get drunk after a good revolution or get lost in your first visit to the winter palce.



Again, they would fall into your category as "reformists" (which is not a bad thing, if you ask me). What I meant was the Social Revolutionaries and other revolutionary factions (incidentally, the ones that fought oppresion in Russia FROM Russia, not Switzerland - where they could've waited for the Kaizer to use them for his convenience).

Yeah, they still fought against a socialist revolution. Doesnt matter what group, they still wanted the capitalists to win and the communists to be destroyed. Nice work there.


No. The real difference is that, were it not for what they called "special conditions", the German socialists would've been "reformists" (although, in a disagreement with the main wing that turned bloody).
Could you elaborate upon this? Seeing as she founded the german communist party something tells me she was a revolutionary

Social-democratic is STILL capitalist. I don't know how much I have to emphasise this. There is still the system of wage-slavery and Lenin saw this and said it should be overthrown.
Fact is: most of what fit into the working-class supported social democracy, then and after. Blame it on "lack of class-conscience", as any good apollogetical Leninist will do, but it still makes the Bolsheviks the mavericks of a Marxist world that rejected them.

Lenin brought it back because the country's economy had been shot thanks to the civil war and the intervention of all those nice little imperialists. Im not entirely sure where I stand on it to be quite frank.
Okay, so Trotsky and Stalin had some similarities of opinion on one issue. How does this make Trotsky a supporter of Stalin's genocide now? Oh wait, that's right. It doesn't and you're lieing.
I guess it would be difficult to define your posision after all this seesawing. Let's agree on this: Lenin himself defined it as "one step forward, two steps back" (you try that motion and see where it gets you) - avoiding doing it in the first place would not have been the same, it would've meant sparing some tens of thousands of lives.
If Trotski disagreed with the permanence of this policy, then he would've advocated the same measures for the removal that Stalin used (I've read some of his stuff: when he mentions Stalin's crimes, he fails to include these murders - even more, the murderous Five-year Plan is only seen as an excuse for Stalin to wipe out other Bolsheviks, but he does not disagree with the mass killing of "nouveau-riche" "kulaks" in order to get the Soviet economy to become "socialist"). Any point you make against this is a point in favour of Stalin.

It was guarded by so few people as most of the army had abandoned the provisional government and sided with the revolutionaries.
Oh no! It was a crack squad who stormed the palace! That's bad how? And I defy you not to get drunk after a good revolution or get lost in your first visit to the winter palce.
No. Most of the Army was supposed to be on the Front! (It was making its way back home, though) The Palace was guarded by the only available forces.
That was not a "crack unit" - it was a bunch of vigilantes, and, in Marxist terms, "lumpen-proletarians" (see Marx arguing about Napoleon III's rise to power - it's so very close to what happened in Petrograd!). Incidentally, I don't think commandos are supposed to get lost! Also, how does a "crack unit" cohabitate with the idea of mass-rebellion?

Yeah, they still fought against a socialist revolution. Doesnt matter what group, they still wanted the capitalists to win and the communists to be destroyed. Nice work there.
Again: February was a revolution. November was a coup, and a rape.

Could you elaborate upon this? Seeing as she founded the german communist party something tells me she was a revolutionary
She was, in her own eyes, a revolutionary. She probably was under more standards than that. So were many other factions, as I mentioned already. But that doesn't make one a revolutionary in Lenin's terms, does it? (In simplistic terms, even Kautsky was revolutionary - he viewed reform as true revolution; I know, you do not agree, but that is beside the point.)
Luxemburg disagreed with Lenin on essential issues. She was for DEMOCRACY, which she understood as different from Lenin's Party hegemony (again, these are her terms). The revolution in Germany, in its primary stage, was a response to a white comeback. Later (after she was killed) it became directly inspired by what was happening in Russia.

Fact is: most of what fit into the working-class supported social democracy, then and after. Blame it on "lack of class-conscience", as any good apollogetical Leninist will do, but it still makes the Bolsheviks the mavericks of a Marxist world that rejected them.
Tell that to the hundreds of thousands who joined them having seen the failure of the provisional government. Tell that to the peasants who needed land, the soldiers sick of fightings or to the workers tired of being exploited.


I guess it would be difficult to define your posision after all this seesawing.

Let's try to keep this civil, shall we?


Let's agree on this: Lenin himself defined it as "one step forward, two steps back" (you try that motion and see where it gets you) - avoiding doing it in the first place would not have been the same, it would've meant sparing some tens of thousands of lives.
Or it could have meant mass starvation and a chance for counter-revolutionaries to gain popular support


If Trotski disagreed with the permanence of this policy, then he would've advocated the same measures for the removal that Stalin used (I've read some of his stuff: when he mentions Stalin's crimes, he fails to include these murders - even more, the murderous Five-year Plan is only seen as an excuse for Stalin to wipe out other Bolsheviks, but he does not disagree with the mass killing of "nouveau-riche" "kulaks" in order to get the Soviet economy to become "socialist"). Any point you make against this is a point in favour of Stalin.
Yes, Stalin agreed with Trotsky on how to revolutionise industry. No, death was not an inbuilt part of this plan, it was a geniuine attempt to increase production within the urban areas.
The Kulaks had to be oppressed. There was no other way to ensure that they would not rebel against the workers' state after being dispossessed of their land and having their power taken away from them.


No. Most of the Army was supposed to be on the Front! (It was making its way back home, though) The Palace was guarded by the only available forces.
That was not a "crack unit" - it was a bunch of vigilantes, and, in Marxist terms, "lumpen-proletarians" (see Marx arguing about Napoleon III's rise to power - it's so very close to what happened in Petrograd!). Incidentally, I don't think commandos are supposed to get lost! Also, how does a "crack unit" cohabitate with the idea of mass-rebellion?

Huge numbers of the army had deserted and many who had been city-dwellers joined the bolsheviks. Ultimately they stopped caring about the petty nationalism and decided to join the revolution or simply going to ensure that they had enough land to farm.
Okay "crack unit" was not the best word to use for them. They were simply a small group of reds who seized the palace because a large group was not neccessary at the time. Larger groups were more likely sent to secure arms, train stations, telehphone exchanges, etc etc.


Again: February was a revolution. November was a coup, and a rape.

Wrong. Both were revolutions. In February the country went from feudalism to capitalism but in November capitalism was overhtrown by socialists.


She was, in her own eyes, a revolutionary. She probably was under more standards than that. So were many other factions, as I mentioned already. But that doesn't make one a revolutionary in Lenin's terms, does it? (In simplistic terms, even Kautsky was revolutionary - he viewed reform as true revolution; I know, you do not agree, but that is beside the point.)
Luxemburg disagreed with Lenin on essential issues. She was for DEMOCRACY, which she understood as different from Lenin's Party hegemony (again, these are her terms). The revolution in Germany, in its primary stage, was a response to a white comeback. Later (after she was killed) it became directly inspired by what was happening in Russia.
I never said i agreed with luxemburg but you make a fair point here.

www.wsws.org

That´s were the Trotzkists are currently at.I advise you join their party instead of adding to the already way too split up commie-party scene.

Tell that to the hundreds of thousands who joined them having seen the failure of the provisional government. Tell that to the peasants who needed land, the soldiers sick of fightings or to the workers tired of being exploited.
No you tell this to the hundreds of thousands that perished in the Red Terror (it was instrumented by Trotski, as I'm sure you know).
The soldiers that got sick of fighting? What about the Civil War? They were coming back home because they heard that the Provisional Gvt. was re-distributing land (as it was doing it, no matter what Lenin made it look like). They turned back to the peasents they were: and DEFENDED their land - against the policies of "war communism" (which Lenin, as I mentioned, soon discovered he couldn't implement - after killing a huge number of them), and later against forced industrialization (when they were supposed to feed the cities while being denied food for their own use, out of their own work).
The soldiers that came from such places as Poland, the Baltics, Moldova, Georgia were the ones to fight Lenin as leftists in their own countries (make sure you know that most of the local leaders were Socialist as well - most notably, Pilsudski).

Let's try to keep this civil, shall we?
I did not mean your seesawing: I meant Lenin's. Sorry I got misunderstood on this.

Or it could have meant mass starvation and a chance for counter-revolutionaries to gain popular support
Mass starvation? War communism (and not even the Civil War) PROVOKED mass starvation - the huge one in 1919-1920 (remember Nansen's rescue missions? ever read Bulgakov's "The White Guard"?). Sure, not many Bolsheviks starved to death - but there weren't many to begin with.

Yes, Stalin agreed with Trotsky on how to revolutionise industry. No, death was not an inbuilt part of this plan, it was a geniuine attempt to increase production within the urban areas.
The Kulaks had to be oppressed. There was no other way to ensure that they would not rebel against the workers' state after being dispossessed of their land and having their power taken away from them.
It's funny that you even believe in the existence of Kulaks (as much as Stalin, I dare say). Honestly, if the situation in the countryside was so poor, home come there would've been ammasing of wealth? Oh wait... there was an increase in neccesities: "kulaks" were kinds of "NEP-men", and that means they were people who had been told (and, only recently) that they COULD do it. By whom? By LENIN!

Huge numbers of the army had deserted and many who had been city-dwellers joined the bolsheviks. Ultimately they stopped caring about the petty nationalism and decided to join the revolution or simply going to ensure that they had enough land to farm.
No such thing.

Okay "crack unit" was not the best word to use for them. They were simply a small group of reds who seized the palace because a large group was not neccessary at the time. Larger groups were more likely sent to secure arms, train stations, telehphone exchanges, etc etc.
Larger groups? What do they amount to? A thousand?
Trotski, who had just turned Bolshevik (from Menshevik - a reason for which Lenin was for a long time weary of him), came into the Central Soviet and told the others - the MAJORITY - it was time for them to head to "the dustbin of history". As he was making his way out at gunpoint, Martov warned that the Pandora box had been opened. Trotski had time to see that he was right: Pandora's evils reached him in Mexico.

Wrong. Both were revolutions. In February the country went from feudalism to capitalism but in November capitalism was overhtrown by socialists
And what did Marx say about that (not that I agree with him, but you should)? You can go from feudalism to socialism in the space of a year? (And then you go through "communism", through revised capitalism, to Stalin?) In fact, he pointed out that Russia was least likely to acomplish something in this respect. Lenin begged to differ on all accounts, as it is expected. He did it all the way only when he saw his chance (when first he came from Finland, he said that socialism is still somewhere far in the future), but what really did to turn Marxism upside-down was that he argued a Revolution can be willed, provoked (Marx' version is hard to descern, as he never made it clear, but it should ammount to: "a Revolution happens when things have reached their momentum; otherwise, it's just Blanquism").

"That's because since the fall of the eastern bloc many left-wingers have been desperate to not be associate with any of those 'nasty revolutionaries' and many have become greens or social-democrats (look up 'eurocommunism' "

First of all, they were nasty revolutionaries who did some VERY questionable things in the name of communism. Second of all, the core of communism isn't running around with a gun and stealthily taking down the government, it's to create an egalitarian society. We can't just throw countries into communism, it doesn't work that way. We have to ease into socialism and once that's sucessful we implement communism. And I'm a good communist even though I don't agree with two of Marx's views (regarding violent revolution and the supression of religion). Answer this: to be a good member of say the Catholic Church, do you have to believe every story within the Bible and do whatever the church says? This is what you're doing to the communists of the world. We're supposed to question all aren't we? So stop blindly following Marx and actually apply communism to today's situation. You're just making us weaker.

"That's because since the fall of the eastern bloc many left-wingers have been desperate to not be associate with any of those 'nasty revolutionaries' and many have become greens or social-democrats (look up 'eurocommunism' "

First of all, they were nasty revolutionaries who did some VERY questionable things in the name of communism. Second of all, the core of communism isn't running around with a gun and stealthily taking down the government, it's to create an egalitarian society. We can't just throw countries into communism, it doesn't work that way. We have to ease into socialism and once that's sucessful we implement communism. And I'm a good communist even though I don't agree with two of Marx's views (regarding violent revolution and the supression of religion). Answer this: to be a good member of say the Catholic Church, do you have to believe every story within the Bible and do whatever the church says? This is what you're doing to the communists of the world. We're supposed to question all aren't we? So stop blindly following Marx and actually apply communism to today's situation. You're just making us weaker.
So, what version of Marxism do you follow? Gramscian?