Chomsky on Leninism

[shakur420]

(01-04-2011 02:11 PM)bailey_187 Wrote:  your argument is based on a the infantile argument that people we dislike (leaders of the USA), use the same argument to justify actions in imperialist wars.

Yup, that's pretty much how I see it. Bullshit coming from this side or that side is still bullshit. People don't get a pass just cause they call themselves "socialists".

Quote:As for the leading role of the party inside the Soviet institutions, this was for Lenin strictly a matter of political persuasion, of capacity to win the allegiance of the majority, and not at all a matter of systematic repression of all contending tendencies (Lenin admitted the necessity of such repression only under exceptional circumstances of civil war...)

- Lenin's Heritage (Ernest Mandel)

(01-04-2011 02:11 PM)bailey_187 Wrote:  you clearly dont understand Marx. be as offended as u want lol, u dont, u repeatedly demonstrate that. you dont understand what capital is. u seem to have an infantile view of class that is ELITES = RULING CLASS. Its not.

Chomsky claims the Marxist movement was to the left of Lenin. I have painstakingly tried tried to point out how those to the left of him were either a) critical supporters or b) TOTALY FUCKING IRELEVENET MATE

Panekok does not equal a movement. council communists are irelevent. the Left Communists support Lenin etc. Whats so hard to get about that?

A bunch of whining losers i.e. panekok supporters does not equal "movement".

Even so, all the criticisms of Lenin from the left outside of Russia only came after the revolution. Chomsky tries to protray them as coming before, as if there was some alternative to Lenin. Nope. Hes making it up. The only significant criticism of Lenin came from the rightists i.e. the Mensheviks.

You're 100% on that. I don't understand Marx, in a lot of ways. I don't get the point of his theory, how he's so sure about his prediction that the dictatorship of the proletariat is the next inevitable stage in economic progress. Then again, I'm not well read on the topic, so maybe I'm missing something. More importantly, I don't understand how people who tried to use his analysis, or variants on them to organize economies, thought they would actually be successful. I concentrate more on Lenin cause we can actually refer to his actions in order to analyze the situation, he put his ideas into practice. I've showed some minimal references pointing to those who were left of Lenin and disagreed with some of his right-leaning tendencies and ideas. And that they came before the revolution. I don't see how Chomsky's incorrect in that. Just cause you claim that these people were irrelevant doesn't make it so.



I've never said that elites=ruling class, but I'd be an idiot for denying that every ruling class is elite, or in layman's terms, a group that excludes others. Again, if we're concerned with basic dictionary definitions.



Capital, from Marx's perspective is simply that which produces profit. You know, things like labor, infrastructure, raw material, property, etc. Course, many people like to use complicated terms like "instruments of production and stored-up labor", but it's not a hard concept to understand, ownership of capital. Capital is the same thing in capitalism as it is in Marxist theory. Again, people will try to complicate things, but any person who's been involved with some type of business or another would agree with Marx's explanation of capital. What's hard to understand is how turning control of that capital to another person, group or party, once taken from the rich (or those who control it now), is Socialism. How is it even the basic definition - workers control over production - if the party can override the workers when it deems necessary? Wait, that's right, like I've been saying all along, Lenin's manifestation of Marx's theories is not Socialism. We're supposed to trust the "revolutionary" leader that his rule will one day, maybe, somehow, if things work out, lead to Socialism.

Quote:Lenin believed, as Marx did, that between capitalism and socialism there is a transition period called the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.

- Lenin's Heritage (Ernest Mandel)

It's pretty clear to me, given what I've taken in. But I'm not sure, that's why I keep asking questions. I'm not gonna accept something when it doesn't make sense to me, and I appreciate you trying to break it down. You seem to be getting frustrated, and I kinda saw that coming, lol, and I do apologize for misleading you there a bit. I was kinda aware of the responses you were gonna give me. I'd checked around for the answers to my question from other Marxist sources, websites, articles, explanations, etc. But I wanted to have a real time discussion with someone who actually knew what they're talking about, so appreciate you taking the time. But I had to test it. I had to see if the ideology of Marxist economic organizations is truly so anti-democratic. Can people like Che and Castro hate Democracy so much? No better than our leaders? Than the founding fathers? Than Locke and Rousseau? People who believe that there needs to be an "enlightened", more educated class to lead everyone else?

Quote:Defending and expanding Marx’s and Engels’s concepts of historical and dialectical materialism, Lenin rejected the mechanistic and naïve belief that class struggle in itself gives to the exploited class – cut off from all the main sources of science – the power to spontaneously reconstruct Marxist theory, the highest product of centuries of intellectual and scientific developments of mankind.

Marxist theory, socialist consciousness, must be introduced from the outside in the class struggle, by conscious efforts of a revolutionary vanguard...

...Marxist theory, socialist consciousness, must be introduced from the outside in the class struggle, by conscious efforts of a revolutionary vanguard. Without such a constant effort, the overwhelming majority of the working class remains subjected to the prevailing influence of the bourgeois and petty-bourgeois ideology.

Lenin's Heritage (Ernest Mandel)

Cause people aren't smart enough to think and act for themselves, right? Somebody gotta tell them how to do things. Here's an idea, open schools and educate everyone possible on the topic and actually try to extinguish classes, instead of perpetuating them in the name of Socialism by trying to shift power to yourself and your buddies.

[shakur420]

This guy "irrelevant" too? Just wondering. lol
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Kropotkin



p.s.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%22Left-W...ected=true
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/wo.../index.htm

[Boboulas]

Luxemburg was a sympathetic critique of bolshevism, it would be incorrect to say she opposed them infact she would likely of been supportive of some kind of party style marxism.

Quote:Dont worry about creating guns to shoot the armies trying to bring back the tsar, that can wait until we have worked out how to fully implement workers control.

LOL Your posts are quite funny but this one tops them off.

Quote:Its only the White Army coming to hang all workers representatives (i.e. those elected in the factory commities) from lamposts

This would be a nice argument if this hadnt actually happend eventually anyway (in essence).

[TheMythOfSisyphus]

The beginning when the lady asks the question and his response to the way she speaks is so classic. I think that girl who asked the question was the mother of Laz and the wife of Vegan.

[Asshole]

vegan would have purged her, not married her. she's with the ISO.

lol get yo facts straight chomsky. he's even confusing soviet right politics with american right politics.
http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~socappeal/...part1.html
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/wo.../index.htm
http://www.marxist.com/wage-differential...ucracy.htm
http://www.marxist.com/alan-woods-on-the...rt-one.htm
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1937/ssf/
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/.../index.htm
stalin bastardized leninism.

the rightwing marxists in russia are the equivalent of the current leftwing marxists in america. the whole paradigm is faulty
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/

april theses being libertarian? lolwut. here is a summary for those who don't have time to read the full work

Quote:1. The war being fought is an imperialist war and a peaceful, democratic ending to the war will only be possible if capital is overthrown. With "particular thoroughness, persistence and patience" this has to be explained to the masses.

2. The unfolding revolution is passing from the first stage where power was put into the hands of the bourgeoisie to the second stage where power must be placed into the hands of the proletariat and the poorest section of the peasants.

3. No support for the provisional Government, "a government of capitalists".

4. Recognition that the Bolsheviks were a small minority in the Soviet and therefore it was necessary for a "patient, systematic and persistent explanation" of the errors of the other parties. At the same time to preach of the need to transfer "the entire state power to the Soviets of Workers Deputies."

5. Not a parliamentary republic but a republic of Soviets of Workers', Agricultural Labourers' and Peasants' Deputies. No standing army but an armed people. Elected officials subject to recall and paid the same as a competent worker.

6. Confiscation of all landed estates and nationalisation of all lands in the country.

7. Banks to be amalgamated into a single bank under the control of the Soviet of Workers' Deputies.

8. Social production and distribution of products under the control of the Soviets.

9. Convocation of a Party Congress. Change Party programme on the imperialist war, the state and the minimum programme. Change of name to Communist Party.

10. A new International.

These ten points laid the basis for the October Revolution which would not have been successful without the leadership of Lenin. They confirmed the inability of capitalism to take society forward and therefore the need to move to the stage of the proletarian revolution. This point brilliantly confirmed Trotsky's Permanent Revolution. Production of wealth and finance to be in the hands of the working class through its democratic organisations. A break with the Mensheviks and the formation of a new Party to fight for power. A break too with the reformist Second International and the creation of a new (Third) International.

All of these events took place 90 years ago but the lessons have still not been learnt by many so-called revolutionaries. Capitalism can offer no future for humankind. There is only Socialism or Barbarism. There are no "progressive" capitalists. There are no two stages. The only programme is the socialist revolution under the control of the working class. The task is through "patient, persistent and systematic" explanation to prepare the forces that will change society.

http://www.marxist.com/significance-leni...s-1917.htm
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/wo...apr/04.htm

. they sought to eliminate the soviets? give me a source on what he is referring to because that makes no sense.

and then the thing about the labor army is ridiculous. we need a militant proletarian during a revolution as long as they are democratically controlled, as was the soviet union prestalin.

now on the german revolution, stalin's passivity in allowing hitler to arrive prevented such an act with his socialism in one country, which was designed to protect his bureaucracy, not continue socialism.
http://www.marxist.com/russiabook/part5.html

the second video i would actually agree with when stalin came into power, however, i addressed his criticism on trotsky-lenin above.

COME AT ME SHAKUR!

[Rick Ross 187]

meh

we done this before. I'm not going to bother arguing about random Lenin quotes which had little effect upon the Russian revolution and its degeneration.

[Asshole]

who would you argue with if you were going to?

[shakur420]

lol, for those of you who like to pretend that comments like these are just tossed around with no research, read post #5 carefully. Address the sources cause romantic visions of "representing" the proletariat and consolidating control in the name of the "people" doesn't fly.
http://www.immortaltechnique.co.uk/Threa...e-of-lenin

[1871]

Quote: Shakur 420

Does Marx not say that the bourgeois are those who control/own capital? Yes or no? If in the new Marxist society, a different class now own/control that capital, they become the bourgeois by his own definition.

^Thats pretty terrible. Agree with a lot of what you say but your use of 'you' rather than the neutral observation, and 'like to pretend' is sneering and counter-productive although what you say is informatyive and largely Id agree on a lot.

But;

There was in Marx the transitional phase. It was flawed but things werent going to happen immediately. Perhaps that was the mistake whereas the situation of the Paris Commune required greater immediacy.

Re; left and right - think of it like a circle ; start from one point go left or go right - keep on going and the points meet at the top ie; authoritarian dictatorship. Sometimes circumsatnces require the rule of authority and then, when that is seen as being effective its believed that the answer is increasing authority - so something becomes the mirror image of what it is against..

I agree to some extent with Chomsky and also disagree with him - since as Rick Ross says these movements take place in specific historical circumsantances.Its easy to see in hindsight

Rick Ross 187- agree with much of what youve said, and your analysis but - saying elements were 'TOTALLY FUCKING IRRELEVANT'

not really. anarchist had played a leading part in the revolution before relations turned sour;

Quote:Bolshevik-anarchist relations soon turned sour as the various anarchist groups realized that the Bolsheviks were not interested in pluralism, but rather a centralized one-party rule. A few prominent anarchist figures such as Bill Shatov and Yuda Roshchin, despite their disappointment, encouraged anarchists to cooperate with the Bolsheviks in the present conflict with the hope that there would be time to negotiate. But most anarchists became disillusioned quite quickly with their supposed Bolshevik allies, who took over the soviets and placed them under Communist control. The sense of betrayal came to a head in March 1918, when Lenin signed the Brest-Litovsk peace treaty with Germany. Though the Bolshevik leaders claimed that the treaty was necessary to allow the revolution to progress, anarchists widely saw it as an excessive compromise which counteracted the idea of international revolution. After months of increasing anarchist resistance and dwindling Bolshevik patience, the Communist government decisively split with their libertarian agitators in the spring of 1918. In Moscow and Petrograd the newly formed Cheka was sent in to disband all anarchist organizations, and largely succeeded. On the night of April 12, 1918 the Cheka (secret police) raided 26 anarchist centres in Moscow, including the House of Anarchy, the headquarters of the Moscow Federation of Anarchist Groups. A fierce battle raged on Malaia Dimitrovka Street. About 40 anarchists were killed or wounded, and approximately 500 were imprisoned. A dozen Cheka agents had also been killed in the fighting. Anarchists joined Mensheviks and Left Socialist revolutionaries in boycotting the 1918 May Day celebrations. By this time some belligerent anarchist dissenters armed themselves and formed groups of so-called “Black Guards” that continued to fight Communist power on a small scale as the Civil War began.The urban anarchist movement, however, was dead.

Neither were they irrelevant since their predictions of the totalitarianism of the left/right were eventually realised in the gulags - and this they predicted.

Writing in hindsight in 1947, Voline - The Unknown Revolution, 1917-1921 (1947)


Book Two: Bolshevism and Anarchism

Part I: Two Conceptions of the Revolution


CHAPTER 1

Two Opposing Conceptions of Social Revolution

Our principal task herein is to examine and establish, to the extent of our ability, what is unknown or little known about the Russian Revolution.

We begin by emphasizing a fact which, without being ignored, is considered only superficially in the western world. This: In October, 1917, this revolution entered upon wholly new terrain -- that of the great Social Revolution. Thus it advanced on a very special route which was totally unexplored.

It follows that the subsequent development of the Revolution assumed an equally new and original character. Therefore, our account will not resemble any of the existing histories of that revolt. Its general appearance, the factors it comprised, its very language, will change, taking on an unaccustomed and singular aspect.

We go on to another fact which is less well known, and which for many readers will be unexpected. In the course of the crises and failures which followed one another up to the revolution of 1917, Bolshevism was not the only conception of how the Social Revolution should be accomplished. Without speaking of the left Social Revolutionary doctrine, resembling Bolshevism in its political, authoritarian, statist, and centralist character, nor of several other small similar currents, a second fundamental idea, likewise envisaging a full and integral social revolution, took shape and spread among the revolutionary circles and also among the working masses; this was the Anarchist idea.

Its influence, very weak at first, increased as events widened in scope. By the end of 1918 this influence had become such that the Bolsheviks, who did not allow any criticism, nor any contradiction nor opposition -- were seriously disturbed. From 1919 until the end of 1921, they had to engage in a severe struggle with the progress of this idea: a struggle at least as long and as bitter as that against reaction.

We underline at this point a third fact which also is not sufficiently known: Bolshevism in power combated the Anarchist and Anarcho-Syndicalist ideas and movements not on the grounds of ideological or concrete experience, not by means of an open and honest struggle, but with the same methods of repression that it had employed against reaction: methods of pure violence. It began by brutally closing the centres of the libertarian organizations, by prohibiting all Anarchist activity or propaganda. It condemned the masses to not hearing the voices of the Anarchists, and to misunderstanding their programme. And when, despite this constraint, the Anarchist idea gained ground, the Bolsheviks passed rapidly to more violent methods, imprisonment, outlawing, killing. Then the unequal struggle between these two tendencies -- one in power, the other confronted by power -- increased, and became, in certain regions, an actual civil war. In the Ukraine, notably, this state of war lasted more than two years, compelling the Bolsheviki to mobilize all their forces to stifle the Anarchist idea and to wipe out the popular movements inspired by it.

Thus the conflict between the two conceptions of the Social Revolution and, at the same time, between the Bolshevik power and certain movements of the labouring masses, held a highly important place in the events of the period embracing 1919-1921. However, all authors without exception, from the extreme right to the extreme left -- we are not speaking of libertarian literature -- have passed over this fact in silence. Therefore we are obliged to establish it, to supply all the details, and to draw the reader's attention to it.

Here two pertinent questions arise:

1. When, on the eve of the October Revolution, the Bolsheviki rallied an overwhelming majority of popular votes, what was the cause of the important and rapid rise of the Anarchist idea?

2. What, exactly, was the position of the Anarchists in relation to the Bolsheviks, and why were the latter impelled to fight -- and fight violently -- this libertarian idea and movement?

In replying to these questions it will be found easy to reveal to the reader the true visage of Bolshevism.

And by comparing the two opposing ideas in action one can understand them better, evaluate their respective worth, discover the reasons for this state of war between the two camps, and, finally, "feel the pulse" of the Revolution after the Bolshevik seizure of power in October, 1917.

Accordingly we will compare, in a rough manner, the two concepts:

The Bolshevik idea was to build, on the ruins of the bourgeois state, a new "Workers' State" to constitute a "workers' and peasants' government," and to establish a "dictatorship of the proletariat."

The Anarchist idea [was and] is to transform the economic and social bases of society without having recourse to a political state, to a government, or to a dictatorship of any sort. That is, to achieve the Revolution and resolve its problems not by political or statist means, but by means of natural and free activity, economic and social, of the associations of the workers themselves, after having overtnrown the last capitalist government.

To co-ordinate action, the first conception envisaged a certain political power, organizing the life of the State with the help of the government and its agents and according to formal directives from the "centre".

The other conception conjectured the complete abandonment of political and statist organization; and the utilization of a direct and federative alliance and collaboration of the economic, social, technical, or other agencies (unions, co-operatives, various associations, et cetera) locally, regionally, nationally, internationally; therefore a centralization, not political nor statist, going from the central government to the periphery commanded by it, but economic and technical, following needs and real interests, going from the periphery to the centres, and established in a logical and natural way, according to concrete necessity, without domination or command.

It should be noted how absurd -- or biased -- is the reproach aimed at the Anarchists that they know only how "to destroy", and that they have no "positive" constructive ideas, especially when this charge is hurled by those of the "left". Discussions between the political parties of the extreme left and the Anarchists have always been about the positive and constructive tasks which are to be accomplished after the destruction of the bourgeois State (on which subject everybody is in agreement). What would be the way of building the new society then: statist, centralist, and political, or federalist, a-political, and simply social? Such was always the theme of the controversies between them; an irrefutable proof that the essential preoccupation of the Anarchists was always future construction.

To the thesis of the parties, a political and centralized "transitional" State, the Anarchists opposed theirs: progressive but immediate passage to the economic and federative community. The political parties based their arguments on the social structure left by the centuries and past regimes, and they pretended that this model was compatible with constructive ideas. The Anarchists believed that new construction required, from the beginning, new methods, and they recommended those methods. Whether their thesis was true or false, it proved in any case that they knew clearly what they wanted, and that they had strictly constructive ideas.

As a general rule, an erroneous interpretation -- or, more often, one that was deliberately inaccurate -- pretended that the libertarian conception implied the absence of all organization. Nothing is farther from the truth. It is a question, not of "organization or non-organization", but of two different principles of organization.

All revolutions necessarily begin in a more or less spontaneous manner, therefore in a confused, chaotic way. It goes without saying -- and the libertarians understood this as well as the others -- that if a revolution remains in that primitive stage, it will fail. Immediately after the spontaneous impetus, the principle of organization has to intervene in a revolution as in all other human activity. And it is then that the grave question arises: What should be the manner and basis of this organization?

One school maintains that a central directing group -- an "elite" group -- ought to be formed to take in hand the whole work, lead it according to its conception, impose the latter on the whole collectivity, establish a government and organize a State, dictate its will to the populace, impose its "laws" by force and violence, combat, suppress, and even eliminate, those who are not in agreement with it.

Their opponents [the Anarchists] consider that such a conception is absurd, contrary to the fundamental principles of human evolution, and, in the last analysis, more than sterile -- and harmful to the work undertaken. Naturally, the Anarchists say, it is necessary that society be organized. But this new organization should be done freely, socially, and, certainly, from the bottom. The principle of organization should arise, not from a centre created in advance to monopolize the whole and impose itself on it, but -- what is exactly the opposite -- from all quarters, to lead to points of co-ordination, natural centers designed to serve all these quarters.

Of course it is necessary that the organizing spirit, that men capable of carrying on organization -- the "elite" -- should intervene. But, in every place and under all circumstances, all those valuable humans should freely participate in the common work, as true collaborators, and not as dictators. It is necessary that they especially create an example, and employ themselves in grouping, co-ordinating, organizing, using good will, initiative, and knowledge, and all capacities and aptitudes without dominating, subjugating, or oppressing any one. Such individuals would be true organizers and theirs would constitute a true organization, fertile and solid, because it would be natural, human and effectively progressive. Whereas the other "organization", imitating that of the old society of oppression and exploitation, and therefore adapted to those two goals -- would be sterile and unstable, because it would not conform to the new purposes, and therefore would not be at all progressive.

In fact, it would not contain any element of a new society, inasmuch as it would only alter the appearance of the old. Belonging to an outdated society, obsolete in all respects, and thus impossible as a naturally free and truly human institution, it could only maintain itself by means of new artifices, new deceptions, new violence, new oppression and exploitation. Which inevitably would lead astray, falsify, and endanger the whole revolution. So it is obvious that such an organization will remain unproductive as a motor for the Social Revolution. It can no more serve as a "transitional society" (as the "Communists" pretend), for such a society must necessarily possess at least some of the seeds of that toward which it purports to evolve. And all authoritarian and statist societies possess only residues of the fallen social order.

According to the libertarian thesis, it is the labouring masses themselves who, by means of the various class organizations, factory committees, industrial and agricultural unions, co-operatives, et cetera, federated and centralized on a basis of real needs, should apply themselves everywhere, to solving the problems of waging the Revolution. By their powerful and fertile action, because they are free and conscious, they should co-ordinate their efforts throughout the whole country. As for the "elite", their role, according to the libertarians, is to help the masses, enlighten them, teach them, give them necessary advice, impel them to take the initiative, provide them with an example, and support them in their action -- but not direct them governmentally.

The libertarians hold that a favourable solution of the problems of the Revolution can result only from the freely and consciously collective and united work of millions of men and women who bring to it and harmonize in it all the variety of their needs and interests, their strength and capacities, their gifts, aptitudes, inclinations, professional knowledge, and understanding. By the natural interplay of their economic, technical, and social organizations, with the help of the "elite" and, in case of need, under the protection of their freely organized armed forces, the labouring masses should, in view of the libertarians, be able to carry the Revolution effectively forward and progressively arrive at the practical achievement of all of its tasks.

The Bolshevik thesis was diametrically opposed to this. In the contention of the Bolsheviki it was the elite -- their elite -- which, forming a "workers' government" and establishing a so-called "dictatorship of the proletariat", should carry out the social transformation and solve its prodigious problems. The masses should aid this elite (the opposite of the libertarian belief that the elite should aid the masses) by faithfully, blindly, mechanically carrying out its plans, decisions, orders, and "laws". And the armed forces, also in imitation of those of the capitalist countries, likewise should blindly obey the "elite".

Such is, and remains, the essential difference between the two ideas. Such also were the two opposed conceptions of the Social Revolution at the moment of the Russian upheaval in 1917.

The Bolsheviks, as we have said, didn't want even to listen to the Anarchists, still less to let them expound their thesis to the masses. Believing themselves in possession of an absolute, indisputable, "scientific" truth, and pretending to have to impose it immediately, they fought and eliminated the libertarian movement by violence from the time the Anarchist idea began to interest the masses -- the usual procedure of all dominators, exploiters, and inquisitors.

In October, 1917. the two conceptions entered into conflict, which became increasingly acute, with no compromise possible. Then, for four years, this conflict kept the Bolshevik power on the alert, and played a more and more significant part in the vicissitudes of the Revolution, until the libertarian movement in Russia was completely destroyed by military force at the end of 1921.

Despite this fact, or perhaps because of it, and the lessons that it teaches, it has been carefully killed by the whole political press.

http://www.ditext.com/voline/173.html

[shakur420]

^Can't say I know enough to speak on the "anarchist" element there, but thanks for the passage, good read.

"...a certain political power, organizing the life of the State with the help of the government and its agents and according to formal directives from the 'centre'..."

That right there is the central theme to most marxist/communist philosophies that I've come across. And it's because of this bullshit that I can't be down with it, and question whether it's, in reality, any different than what we have today, what the forefathers envisioned, what the privileged have always offered us in order to pacify our will to resist and make things better. If I call you a motherfucker, or use some sarcasm when I approach the issue for the 100th time, noticing that no one wants to address the references that are dropped, well that's just the way it is. If you're so fucking weak that you can't get past that and deal with the substance, that's your issue. How many times have you called me retarted or some next bullshit? Told me to grow up when you're out here talkin pure shit and dropping things that make no sense? Do I fucking cry about it? I deal with what interests me, what I understand and try to address the substance, if there is any. If people got issues with my language, my attitude or whatever, and wanna point to that shit instead of addressing the substance that might be there, I don't have much to say. I might talk a little shit myself, drop a comment here or there but I'm not gonna cry because someone else is doing the same. lol, whenever there's real conversation, there's gonna be some heat, that's just the way it is, at least the way I've seen it every time there's important issues being discussed.

That circle thing, with politics, can you make a thread about that or something? Dude at work told me about that too. He's not convinced Lenin envisioned a totalitarian model either, he feels it began with Stalin, coincidentally, he's not familiar with the quotes and works from Lenin that I've thrown at him, so I don't take his position on that too seriously, but the point is, when I compare Lenin and right wing "socialists" with fascism, he tells me about the "circle". I always saw things in terms of a line, left, right and center, and just felt it was more complicated as I learned more about peoples' positions. A "left" organization can talk about totalitarian control, so like direction from an elite group, so they have qualities and beliefs that are similar to "left" ideologies, Socialism, liberalism, etc., but they also share qualities of the extreme right like centralized power, top-down administration. So dude mentioned that in school, you learn about the "circle", because these left/right movements are accurately described in a linear context. Not that I believe anyone on this spectrum is for real, it's all pretty much bullshit, but I'd like to learn about this circle, have seen some stuff, but don't really think much of it. If someone could explain it, maybe lay it out or something, I'd appreciate it.

[shakur420]

p.s. I don't see the issue with me calling people out for pretending shit isn't there. They talk all this talk about "this is the way it is" but they ignore the shit right in front of them. The shit I put there (or someone else did) because they haven't come across it themselves or are too lazy (or scared) to follow up on once it's pointed out to them. You're talking all this shit about how the information is there in the mainstream press, well of course it, where do you think I find shit? It just takes some effort, and the help of some people who are willing to point you in the direction, show you some sources and shit. These people have dropped info about a lot of things (Pilger, Chomsky, Falk, Said, and many, many more), it's there if you're interested to learn. There shit is actively barred from the mainstream, but in the last decade, there's literally no excuse if you're interested, there's a lot of info you can grab from here or there. For people to come at me telling me that Lenin was benevolent, misguided or forced to destroy workers control in order to preserve it (HAHA) when there's websites with his entire works available out there, you better fucking believe I'm calling them on their pretending. They're straight up misrepresenting, lying and talking outta their asses. Their positions are about as credible as Glenn Beck trynna tell me about the Islamic/Socialist/Communist conspiracy to bring the U.S. down in flames.

[1871]

Quote:Shakur420

If I call you a motherfucker, or use some sarcasm when I approach the issue for the 100th time, noticing that no one wants to address the references that are dropped, well that's just the way it is.

kettle pot black calling the

and people do address the issues youve raised - they just dont agree with you - which you have a difficult time accepting

Quote:Shakur420

You're talking all this shit about how the information is there in the mainstream press, well of course it, where do you think I find shit?

So its talking shit to say its there or not talking shit to say its there?
Who said that the media dont misuse to support State agendas ? Certainly not me.

Quote:Shakur420

How many times have you called me retarted or some next bullshit? Told me to grow up when you're out here talkin pure shit and dropping things that make no sense?

Can I help it if youre too retarded to understand it or follow the links? lol

People do address the issues youve raised - they just dont agree with you.

Quote:Shakur420

For people to come at me telling me that Lenin was benevolent, misguided or forced to destroy workers control in order to preserve it (HAHA)

^ Another distortion and misrepresentation of what was said at least in this thread.