1 RAFIQ THE PROPHET HAS SPOKEN Volume One 1st Edition Hegel-Marx-Engels-Lenin-Kautsky-Dzerzhinsky-Althusser-Zizek-DNZ-Rafiq Thought Publishers Edited by Walter B. and L. A., Short Biographical Sketch provided by K. M. O. V.

2 [FONT="Courier New"] “We stand for organized terror - this should be frankly admitted. Terror is an absolute necessity during times of revolution. Our aim is to fight against the enemies of the Revolution and of the new order of life. ” ― Felix Dzerzhinsky [/FONT] ةروثلل شيتفتلا مكاحم فقو نكمي ءيش ل “I [have not had any articles published online], I don't think anyone would want to publish them anyway.” CONTENTS 1 Short Biographical Sketch - 6 2 Works - 7 Re: The Natural Instinct to stick to your own kind. 8 Re: Whats a left-wing Anarchist without Communism? 29 Re: Is there any actual hope for Parliamentary politics? 30 Re: Has anyone heard of anti-fascist organization called Millennium? 77 Re: Soviet anti-relgious propoganda. 80 Re: Salem Witch Trials as "real" in 2013-2014 film and television 81 Re: tendency? 82 The Petty Bourgeois Ideologues 96 Re: the antisemitism of famous socialists 106 Re: Is this situation rape? 110

3 Re: My understanding of why drugs are illegal. 111 Re: Should Communism/Socialism Allow Religion? 112 Re: Communism impossible while the US exists? 115 Re: Why Ancient Wisdom Matters In the Modern World 119 Re: How to combat reactionary thought? 123 Re: Hi, I have a interesting ideology 124 Re: Do you believe in god(s)? Poll #5 136 Re: Gideon Levy: The world is sick of Israel and its insanities 138 Re: Opposing big business: an opportunist adaptation to petit-bourgeois consciousness 139 Re: Can someone explain the different types of socialism to me? 143 Re: Morals are inherently bourgeois? 145 Re: Game of Thrones 146 Re: question to the guys: Feminist or ally? 148 Re: How proletarian was the Chinese revolution? 149 Re: What is the point of competition? 151 Re: How would Communists go about clearing up their reputation? 153 Re: Fascist Government 154 Re: What Are You Watching III 155 Re: Classical Marxism today 156 Re: Dawn of the Planet of the Apes 164 Re: Britain - the Organized Ruling Class Peadophile Ring 165 Re: Today I Just Learned that Communism and Anarchism are Pointless Dreams 166 Re: Strange question re: 'erotic asphyxiation' 167 Re: PARIS: Jews flee as Jewish businesses are being smashed, burned and looted over Gaza 168 Re: Krav maga and systema 177 Re: Have I got movement for you! 178 Re: Feminism and Capitalism 179 Re: the tech utopia nobody wants: why the world nerds are creating will be awful 180 Re: Kierkegaard 182 Re: Defending Nihilism 185 Re: The Soviet Union Thread 187 Re: Beards, Bananas and...Bell-bottoms? 242 Re: Circumcision Discussion (split from FGM thread) 266 Re: To each according to his deed? 267 Re: Communism Today 268 Re: Male Monogamy? 269 Re: Why are certain specific patterns so common in the universe? 270 Re: In your view, what is the biggest challenge to the Revolutionary Left today? 271 Membership dues 274 Re: Arming the Kurds: Bad Idea? 288 Re: Dismissive term for anti-animal socialists needed 294 Re: Islamic State mass killing and enslaving Christians and Yezidis 296 Re: What is democracy? 297 Re: #WomenAgainstFeminism 298 Re: Advocating matriarchy? 302 Re: Objective Interest 303 Re: "Meet ISIS's worst nightmare" 304 Re: roarmag article on the new libertarian course of the PKK 309 Ideology and Death 310 Re: Theses on the Philosophy of History 314 Re: Do you hate Chuck E. Cheese? Here's the perfect game for you! 315 Re: Anarchism, Marxism and veganism 316 Re: How's the revolution coming? Am i late? 320 Re: The Pope calls a capitalism a "new tyranny". 321

4 Re: Dawkins and a "bizarre twitter storm" 322 Re: Hegelian Marxism? 324 Re: Boko Haram conquers towns for the Caliphate 381 Re: Pro-Russian rebels adopt Czarist Imperial Flag as National Flag 383 Re: Francis Fukuyama 387 Re: This....is not easy to watch. [CW - homophobic violence] 389 Re: Meaning of Life 395 Re: Well I admit im a douche or was. 396 Re: Cultural appropriation 400 Re: leaked un climate report: 75 percent of reserves must stay in ground 403 Re: Is Communism Essentially Dead? 404 Re: U.S. Hikes Fee To Renounce Citizenship By 422% 405 Re: International Volunteers in Ukraine 406 Re: On gays - "we in Crimea do not need such people" - de facto leader says 408 Re: Political Conversions? 410 Re: What defines reactionary/what is reactionary? 411 Re: "The American working class is the most reactionary working class in the world" 412 Re: What exactly is a proletarian? 413 Re: Dealing with high-school pressure to conform? 415 Re: Why is buddhism so popular? 417 Re: Restricted Ideologies and why? 421 Re: Isis jihadis shaped by Western philosophy 422 Re: Unity 424 Re: How many German woman were raped when the Soviets conquered Berlin? 430 Re: Obama Authorizes Air Strikes on "ISIS", and Inevitably Many Civilians 431 Re: What about the Working Class? 436 Re: Objectivist 'Utopia' Falls Apart Almost Immediately 449 Re: Hungary bids farewell to "racist and classist" Marx 450 Re: Possession in Communism 451 Re: Anarcho-Communism and Conflicts 452 Re: The Case for Materialism 453 Re: Let's talk about privilege theory 454 Re: Valid arguments against Marxism 459 Re: Which Religion do you follow II 464 Re: It Can't Be Refuted: ISIS Was Born Of U.S. Intervention In Iraq & Covert In Syria 468 Re: Cultural Marxism 471 Re: Hong Kong Protests 472 Re: the rise of data and the death of politics 474 Re: Violent Revolution: A Contradiction in Terms? 475 Re: Fear and the Struggle 479 Re: Tactics/Strategies/Arguments for Fighting ISLAMOPHOBIA?? 480 Re: Reza Aslan responds to Bill Maher on CNN 482 Re: The Ends and the Means 509 Re: Can someone tell me what my tendency is? 511 Re: Good books on radical Islam? 512 Re: Does Gorbachev get too much flack? 513 Re: Problem of Tendency. 515 Re: Do you support US bombing in Syria? 518 Re: How to avoid a dictatorship 522 3 Correspondence - 523

5 The Vegan Marxist 524 mykittyhasaboner 525 Adil3tr 526 Red Commissar 527 Die Neue Zeit 528 1. SHORT BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Rafiq was born as the amnesic reincarnation of Dzerzhinsky. That’s all you need to know about Rafiq’s past as an idealist. Rafiq’s first recorded involvement with The Young Materialists (In Correspondence, in response to a famed Young Materialist, The Vegan Marxist) was the rather humble message, “How are you doing comrade..” And so began the actual Marxist tradition in the 21st century. This first volume consists of the works of the “Late Late Late Late Neo Late Post Neo Late Rafiq”, who, despite his “old heart” condition, still manages to school WORTHLESS IDIOTS WHO JUST DON’T FUCKING UNDERSTAND HIM. -K. M. O. V.

6 2. Works

7 Re: The Natural Instinct to stick to your own kind. There are no natural, or even 'culturally organic' predispositions towards nationalism. Nationalism is imposed, it is alien, it is a weapon of confusion against the natural predisposition towards proletarian consciousness. - Althusser strangled his wife. I'm no humanist but Althusser is seriously one of the most moronic, idiotic fools to ever exist who didn't understand marx one bit. Not to mention being a stalinist (not even that, but a revisionist stalinist!) but also popularized maoism Yeah no bias for distorting marx there.... There is no break with marx, there is only development. The Marx who wrote Grundisse, German Ideology, the Manifesto, is the same as the man who wrote Capital or Critique of the Philosophy of the Right. In sum: fuck althusser. Why anyone thinks the revisionist of a revisionist is a serious authority is beyond me. Remus Bleys Remus your ignorance is appalling, you really haven't the slightest fucking idea of what you're talking about. If your opposition to humanism is not concurrent with Althusser's, you are a reactionary. This kind of anti-humanism can only translate into one thing: Pre- humanism. I just cannot even articulate how anyone could believe Althusser was "one of the most moronic, idiotic fools to ever exist" (At least he probably wasn't fucking redundant with his baseless slurs) even those who might disagree with him would never dare hold such reservations. Althusser was not particularly concerned with politics outside philosophy, he may have identified with maoism, but this is most likely due to the background from which he was derived, i.e. New Left France. Actually being a Maoist post 68, despite the fact that Maoism is garbage, can say a lot about you. It's really so silly how you attribute characterizations, and groupings exclusive to this website to others, as if Althusser made his internet tendency "Maoist". It's like some stupid game to you. Part of development means breaking, part of Christianity developing meant breaking with the Church, part of bourgeois ideology developing meant breaking with religion, part of Marx's development meant breaking with Hegel's idealism, as well as breaking with humanism (though this is an argument for another thread, about whether he broke with humanism). The point is that breaks and developments - there is a false dichotomy you're trying to spew, and that, Remus, that's fucking beyond stupid. I mean it's so ridiculous, you're literally just fucking declaring things. Who the fuck are you, Remus, I mean can't I

8 just say "Marx who was a young Hegelian was the same as the man who wrote Capital", wouldn't that be just as insightful as the shit you're trying to say? Althusser is by far the greatest proponent of Marx in this post 68 era. It is with Althusser's help that we bring Marxism into today's world, he championed it's legacy. And he's taken for granted, a great many of the reservations held by Marxists today, whether they know it or not were greatly influenced by Althusser and his analysis of the state and ideology, among many other things. Althusser has done more for our legacy than you ever will. So really, fuck you, Remus. Maybe you'll grow out of this phrase, but honestly, this "edgy bordigist" facade doesn't suite you, it's childish and beyond irritating. It's so ironic that a so-called Bordigist would abandon any sort of Marxist discipline and uprightness, you're literally just spewing nonsense, as though your 'aggressive' tone supplements such utter and complete bullshit. - Without Althusser, we are lost, there is really not way we could understand the nature of the existing order today without Althusser, or at least the theories he brought forth. Correction: Hold on, where the fuck did you get that Althusser was a Maoist? Nothing in his writings is remotely close to Maoism, nothing is remotely influenced by Mao's writings, or the writings of other Maoists. If we understand this, we can only come to the conclusion that Althusser must have identified as one, in order to call him one. So did he? He did not. - Oh this is fucking rich coming from some DNZ-ist. I mean weren't you the same guy calling the ICC petite- bourgeois because of... a polemic against the Russian Lefts. I mean you want to talk about acting like assertion of nonsensical claptrap in an aggressive manner gives you some credibility, then read your own post. There is literally nothing of value in it, just a banal assertion of Althusser being somehow theoretically coherent. Who the fuck cares if Althusser remained a maoist post 68? Camatte remained a Communist post 68 and he went fucking insane. A better example yet, remaining a Kruschevite in the face of Yeltsin, who cares? Rafiq you want to talk about teenage edginess... Let's talk about this nonsense you spew about updating Marx, about some snobby know it all approach that through the shit of renegade Kautsky and that farce Althusser you have found the right answer. PROtip Rafiq I don't give a damn about enriching the "legacy," and I don't give a damn about you. You want to act like I'm the one talking this as some Internet tendency... Well you're in the SPUSA. It's laughable that you Chavismo supporting, Third World Caesarist, DNZist (LIGHT OF THE WORLD), SPUSAer (ITS JUST FOR DEBATE! IT'S JUST FOR DEBATE! Who cares, what debate are you going to get out of that?) pretend to pass as an authority. Its with Althusser's help... Jesus Christ, do we need gramsci too? For fuck's sale rafiq, at least get your ideology coherent. And I'm not even going to deal with this nonsensical "opposition to humanism and Althusser is pre humanism" as if Althusser defined one of the more complex things to be found in Marx... But you would rather brush off the "young marx" like bernstein before you. And yes Rafiq you do stink of opportunism. You act as if all that is needed is an ideological victory is all that is necessary: Well then read your Young Marx, you fool! "The weapon of criticism cannot, of course, replace criticism of the weapon, material force must be overthrown by

9 material force; but theory also becomes a material force as soon as it has gripped the masses." you certainly understand the necessity of theory, but of praxis? Heavens no. Your support of chavismo is proof enough against this. Rafiq, oh how ye have fallen! Or were you ever on high? I think, unfortunately, no. You have this inability to separate politics from philosophy, Althusser himself revised the dialectic... Because Stalin said! How is that doing what you desire, i.e. abandoning the old movement? But, no, you place this stalinist Above that, making him out to be some sort of God amongst men, this hack becomes a mere Bernstein, revising Marx and making breaks where there are none. What is more Bernstein about you? That you support this insane Third World Caesarism (as if some Bourgeois state will lead to socialism!), that you focus merely on the ideological, that you falsely separate narx into a mere young and old, or that you are into the SPUSA? In short: fuck you, you wretched parody of Second International Opportunism! That you do not see the codependant relationship of philosophy from politics is sophmoric at best. Edit: I see the reactionaries (the stalinist, the nationalist, and the jucheist/MRNer) agree with rafiq. No surprise there. You suck when you aren't talking about violence. Remus Bleys What is a DNZist? It's a silly categorization that you've all run wild with. Shame on the lot of you for all of your reckless assumptions, you've created a world of your own as far as I'm concerned. I disagree with DNZ about a great many things, our politics are simply not the same, neither is our notion of Communism. The point, however, is that DNZ derives his politics from the land of the living, whilst the politics of the Left today are defined by conditions and circumstances that no longer exist. I'm not part of this silly RevLeft faction war or extravaganza, I post here regularly as a means of discussion, I have said time and time again I don't care about any of you, or what you think of me. What I post is there, for everyone to read. Perhaps if you carefully read them, instead of assuming things and attributing to me positions I have never read, you would realize I have never supported Chavez, I detest Chavez and have condemned him time and time again for his support of the Iranian state, as well as the reactionary, anti-Semitic tendencies within Chavismo ideology. The closest I have come to as far as 'support' goes for Chavez, was claiming that the standards for politics has improved and widened. And it's undeniable. To claim that new prominent political trends in Venezuela have all come out of Chavez's ass is wrong, it's not all connected to Chavismo. People have formed organs of power outside of the bourgeois state, this I claim is not a bad thing. And by the way, you stuipd fuck, Althusser wasn't a Maoist. Show me anything that indicates his works and theories have anything to do with Maoism, even his politics had nothing to do with Maoism. He may have sympathized with the Chinese state, a mistake no doubt, but that doesn't make him

10 a fucking Maoist or a subscriber to Mao's skewed and twisted Marxism Leninism. You talk about Kautsky and the second international but never have I said anything that would allow anyone to imply that I am a 'Kautskyan', actually I have always spoke of Kautsky's betrayal as Lenin has, I have recognized it and for that reason Kautsky's legacy is forever shamed. What I have concurred with as far as DNZ goes, is that Kautsky was truly a traitor, meaning he was, and Lenin himself had recognized this, a genuine Marxist before the renegade. There is nothing wrong with reapproaching the strategies and organizational methods of the SPD, for christ's sake the Bolsheviks were literally the application of the SPD model to Russian conditions. How the fuck could you call me Kautskyan? Have you been paying any attention to my posts, you little piece of shit? Fucking worthless little twat that you are, who the fuck are you, Remus? As far as I'm concerned, you're nothing but a fucking child looking for a hobby on the internet. Wasn't it a year ago that you were what, a curious little rabbit looking for an identity? There's nothing wrong with not knowing anything, but for fuck's sake, have a sense of humility, you are in no position to be so aggressive. You have no notion of Marxism or the existing order of things. You're worthless. Want my "protip"? Stop posting, shut the fuck up and learn. The model that allowed the Bolsheviks to come to power was forgotten, I recognize this, does that mean anyone is asking to rehabilitate Kautsky? No. If you look at some of the most recent posts I made, I stressed that even if some of the effective organizational methods utilized by the pre-war SPD and the bolsheviks were replicated, this is not enough. The necessity of will, and the revolutionary spirit (the same one that runs wild in the hearts of some of the oldest Anarchists), this blind irrationality is necessary. Bolshevik militancy was the synthesis of disciplined, sophisticated Marxism coupled with the revolutionary fires of the anarchists (Remember Lenin, called an anarchist by the bourgeois press, called a statist by the anarchists). You want to attack me? Go ahead, try, but don't you dare fucking create this false identity for me. Don't pretend like you understand my politics, my positions, or my understanding of Marxism. So what if I'm a 'member' of the SPD? I don't do fucking shit for the SPD, I don't go to their silly demonstrations and I don't help them in anyway, I simply want to have a connection with a broad variety of Leftists outside of this website because I

11 desperately seek experience? But you know what, I haven't got any from them! But fuck it, I've already said this before! I've said how disgusted I am of the SPD and their members, their politics, and to be quite honest them personally. I am repulsed by "democratic socialism". What I was interested in is the SPD being multi-tendency, which doesn't even matter as far as the Detroit section goes. Revleft is multi-tendency, I despise most of the politics here, and yet here I am. So what does being a member actually mean? I don't even consider them a real political party. You dare patronize me, Remus? Who the fuck are you to talk down to me, to give me advice? You don't know shit! When older, experienced users talk down to me, regardless of whether they are right or not, they can, they are in the right - they have experience with the Communist movement and have experience participating in the class struggle. But who the fuck are you Remus? Some kid on the internet? It might appear that I am only concerned with ideology, or an ideological victory, but only because ideology is all we can speak of on the fucking internet. You're talking out of your ass, again. There is no Communist movement today, there is nothing, all that we have today is the question of ideology for us intellectuals. And because I don't see myself as the fucking messiah of Communism or the next Lenin, I can solely concern myself with Communism as an ideology, as well as Communism's relationship to the social order. I am not a professional revolutionary and neither are you. The difference is that you're a dishonest little twat living in a fantasy land ("Hur dur, that's ironic, considering your poetry and so on!" you'll say. Just as testament to your ignorance). So you're a bordigist? You're of the Italian left? Tell me what connections you have to them, Remus. Are you involved with them? Are you a 'member'? No? Then you're just a fucking sympathizer! How could you not understand that difference? Don't speak to me of "praxis". This is something I am fully aware of, I'm not pretending I have the magical solution the crises of proletarian consciousness, but your lot have done fuck all to bring forth any meaningful insight. And then you accuse me of being like Bernstein (What the actual fuck?) I mean let's look at a few snippets of this complete shitpile of a post What is more Bernstein about you? That you support this insane Third World Caesarism (as if some Bourgeois state will lead to socialism!)

12 Remus Bleys Do I? Recently, I posted that Julius Caesar's politics were not at all 'nationalistic' as if he was a conservative dictator like Sulla. Do I think that there is definitely a problem no Marxists have been able to posit, with regard to the problem of the peasantry as a demographic majority of many countries? What is your solution to this, Remus? There is only one logical solution for the Left Communists - support capitalist development to occur within these countries, in order for the productive relations necessary for Left Communist theory to be applicable to, to develop. That sounds a lot more like Bernstein than anything DNZ could ever spew. But everything aside, everything aside, let's assume that I completely and wholly buy into Third World Caesarean Socialism. How is this 'Bernstein-esque' in any meanginful way? What about Bernstein and his politics would have supported Third World Caesarean socialism? You're going to have to be specific, because Bernstein is a specific man. He advocated the natural evolution between capitalism and socialism through gradual parliamentary reforms. DNZ espouses that a strong executive power with support from the peasant demographic majority forms a coalition government with the proletariat in order to combat the bourgeoisie and counter revolutionary elements. That doesn't sound anything remotely similar to Bernstein's politics. Again, it's an abstract theory that I'm skeptical has any real application given the political climate of today's world, but if you're going to criticize it, criticize it in the right way. that you focus merely on the ideological, that you falsely separate narx into a mere young and old, or that you are into the SPUSA Remus Bleys Again, you 'focus on the ideological' more than I do, the difference is that I recognize it for what it is. It's all ideological, every fucking post on this website is wholly and completely ideological. Marx can be separated into young and old, just as Marx can be separated between his idealist and materialist phrase (It's funny how you ignore Marx's involvement in the young hegelians). Even the most vigorous opponents of Althusser recognize that yes, old and young Marx were different in many ways. Not to say "Fuck young Marx", just that Marx had matured and many things he held, he no longer did. Of course you won't read that. Of course you'll ignore that and go on spewing your bullshit. Of course you'll just do the same thing over, and over again. Well fuck you, it's here, everyone can see it, drown in your fucking ignorance you little pig. Of all the shit that's been leveled against me, Bernstein? Really? Are you fucking stupid? Do you even know who

13 Bernstein was, you child? How is there any meaningful connection between Bernstein and Althusser? When Bernstein differentiated Marx and his old self, he did not do so in terms of an epistemological break, he did so in terms of young Marx being passionate and revolutionary, while old Marx being "wiser" and more conservative. Both Althusser and I recognize that Marx consistently possessed a heart of fire, and was deeply committed to the class struggle and the fires of Communism until his death. That isn't the point anyone is trying to make. The point was Marx's humanism as well as his theory of alienation. Which brings me to ask, if you disagree with Althusser's take on Marx's humanism, why do you oppose humanism? Surely if young Marx was the same as Old Marx, and you are a Marxist, why are you not a humanist? It's because you're a reactionary. Oh and by the way, there are some things I do not agree with Althusser about. I still think there is a great deal to learn from Hegel and it would not be a stretch if, in a certain perspective Marx is understood as a category of Hegel. I don't buy that all remnants of Hegelianism were abandoned by Marx (even althusser knew this well), or that Hegel should be purged. Materialism is perfectly compatible with Hegel. Without Hegel, there would be no Marx. There's the difference between Althusser and I, I still hold that 'purging Hegel' would be a mistake. That's hardly worship. Fucking idiot. Such gross stupidity, such pretentiousness. You don't know what you're attacking, you're literally attacking a straw man. "Second international opportunism?". What a desperate attempt to legitimize your own dead, baseless politics. You're not interested in defending the legacy of Marxism (Which is all that, as intellectuals, we can do right now), you're interested in fitting in. Shame on all of the people who encourage such ignorance as well, I had thought better of them. Were these not the same people who concurred with me not even a few months ago? Nothing has changed but this "DNZ" drama. It's ridiculous, fine then, fuck you all. Especially you Remus, your whole post was a complete and utter lie, nothing but baseless assumptions and slander. Nothing you have posted is reflective of myself in anyway at all, and fuck, I thought Linksradikal was arguing

14 with a straw man. In the midst of you, he knew what I was trying to say perfectly well. Though if anyone still has doubts, click my profile and look at my recent posts, even before this thread. See if there's anything that would indicate the accusations leveled against me have any meaningful foundations except a silly stereotype about people on this site who don't despise DNZ. - Oh and unless I'm mistaken, is this fucker really a Roman Catholic? A fucking Catholic is going to talk to me about Marxism? Jesus fucking Christ, I've seen it all! EDIT Does this little swine refer to this post, when he accuses me of "only caring about ideology"?: It's not a matter of strategy, but of ideology Rafiq if so, does he draw grandiose conclusions about my politics because of this one post taken out of context? With regard to Kautsky's betrayal, as I said, it is completely a matter of ideology. Ideology means more than he thinks, to him ideology probably just means "tendency" or other such bullshit. Ideology is a matter of where you stand, what you truly are as far as your social and political character goes. You can have an effective strategy, but still be an opportunist whose heart does not lye with the revolution, as Kautsky's was. This is what I refer to. When I say the necessity of will, I mean the necessity of the Communist spirit. No one is fucking saying this is 'just about' having the right ideology, but the necessary basis for such an ideology to even mean anything. The point is that having a rifle is not enough, you have to know where to shoot. This was after others accused the pre-war SPD strategy being ineffective due to the ultimate renege of the Second International. My point was that this had nothing to do with their strategies, but their very essence as organizations - i.e. What they really were. Also Left Wing Communism: an infantile disorder is NOT a polemic against solely the Russian left. It is a polemic against Left communist trends. It's so cute how you talk straight out of your fucking ass. "weren't you the guy..." Yeah shut the fuck up,

15 if that's all you could have taken out from that conversation, you don't deserve to be taken seriously. So what, is it now fashionable to be self righteously and aggressively stupid? This try hard edginess, Remus, it'll ware off, you'll grow to be some reactionary ideologue, Mark my words. I'm calling this right now, everyone. Like do you actually think you can fucking get away with being aggressive and dismissive when you don't know shit to begin with? I mean fucking look at you, "fuck this website" - Damn, what a rebel you are, you probably are just too cool for an internet discussion board, it's only by your benevolence that you remain here. Lenin had a nice word for people like you. it's called being a philistine. - Remus, you speak as though my politics are defined by the several categorizations found on this website. That is what I mean, when I say I do not care. My point is that not a long while ago you, among many others (And yes, Takayuki, I speak directly to you) had very few qualms with me, and my posts. I specifically remember many of you speaking to me, discussing your concurrences. Quite honestly I do not find any of you (Left Communists who are not of the dutch/german current) to be particularly of bad politics, our disagreements are very real, however I cannot say I have ever despised them. My point is that whatever caused such hostility - leave me the fuck out of your cute little feuds, I don't have anything to do with any of the drama you have with those in the Revolutionary Marxist group, I don't post here everyday, I don't know about anything of that sort. Grow the fuck up. Though the first instance that I could remember, is the discussion about the ICC, which had apparently hit some nerves among you. To this day I hold that the ICC has very useful insights, I do not consider them enemies, I had simply proposed that many of their solutions, as a result of their understanding of existing conditions, were petty bourgeois. When Left Communists are in quarrel with reformists, or Leninists, they are in the right. My problem is not so much what they oppose, but what they offer as a solution to the crises of proletarian consciousness. That's besides the point, that's another discussion. I was speaking more about Trotskyist crypto-cults like the Spartacists, anyway. Now of course our politics are heavily influenced by history, we are Marxists, our

16 positions have come from the past. The point I was trying to make is that whatever qualms you have with DNZ's views, they are derived from the land of the living in the sense that their application is solely concerned with today's world. If DNZ were to speak about Lassalle, why would he? Lassalle had long been discarded by the Left for the better part of the 20th century - why revive him if not because he believes Lassalle has a real application to the current conditions of life today? Whether this is true or not is a different discussion. What a simplistic, crypto- liberal approach to Chavez. How could a whole political current, how could a whole mass struggles be reduced to the prerogatives of the Chavismo? Do you deny the existence of class struggle in Venezuela? For Christs sake, the protests and so on that had been enraging the country were the complete and purest expression of class struggle, the propertied, privileged petite bourgeoisie against the state. Let me be clear - Chavez and the Chavismo possess many reactionary tendencies and the model offered by Chavez is not a solution, but the communes should not so easily be dismissed. The phenomena of Chavez has greatly changed the standards of politics in Venezuela, even the fiercest opponents of the PSUV are forced to adopt social democratic platforms in order to hold any sway over the masses. My point wasn't that Chavez was on the path of ushering in a new Socialism or "Socialism in the 21st century" (this 5th international nonsense was absolute nonsense). My point was that the space for proletarian consciousness to develop was opened, the likeliness - however low of more radical politics to develop among the masses which could further turn against the state was greatly increased. I had pointed out, I am sure, how in Chile Allende's rule had done the same - many forget the much more radical elements in Chile which went as far as to call for insurrection against Allende. Of course they failed, of course nothing happened - but the possibility was there. You, Remus, are like those democratic socialists that we find in the SPUSA who disassociate completely with 20th century Communism, who claim that they have absolutely nothing to do with the phenomena of Stalinism, and all of the disasters that characterized it. It's cowardly, it's our legacy, it's a failure but it is our failure. Let's not sit here, for fuck's sake, and pretend that there is nothing we can learn from them - from the arts to the planned economy. Our slate has not been wiped clean by the collapse of the Soviet Union. In the same way, don't pretend that every expression of Leftist sediment in Venezuela is directly an expression of the interests of the Chavismo, and the 'patriotic bourgeoisie'. This is wholly Idealist, there is a class struggle occurring

17 today in Venezuela, the PSUV are almost like the unconscious bourgeois state, trying to steer and shape working class sediments in the interests of capital. Althusser indeed had praised the cultural revolution, as most intellectuals of the time did. He made it very clear, however, that he was not a Maoist. Calling Althsuser a "khruschevite" is absolutely ridiculous, trying to fit him within the paradigm of cold war Communist politics is absurd. Althusser was not some party leader, he was not a politician. And yes, you fucking philistine, he was a philosopher. Do you think that in anyway such anti-intellectualism has some kind of proletarian character? May as well consider domestic violence, racism and so on as 'proletarian in nature' as they are commonplace among them. Hegel, the man whom you despise, said that we should hope one day that the masses arise to us, but we should not however lower ourselves to the masses. As a self proclaimed admirer of Bordiga, you should know better than to oppose such logic, it was Bordiga after all who was adamant in the defense of Marxism and the party, indiscriminate of the popular fervor. Althusser's theory does not bring us to the conclusion of support for the cultural revolution or support for the politics of the party her was a member of. Whilst he was a member, he had always remained critical - again he was not a politician, he was an ordinary Marxist politically whose heart was in the field of philosophy. You're such a fucking moron Remus, really? You're going to ignore context, and so on? Should Althusser have joined some kind of Left Communist sect? Nobody fucking knew anything about that. I suspect your deep seated hatred for him derives from the fact that he was greatly influenced by Antonio Gramsci. And Boridga was violently opposed to Gramsci's politics, indeed. That doesn't mean Gramsci has nothing to offer, Gramsci's insights on cultural hegemony, caesarism and so on are indeed quite useful to any Marxist. His politics may have been garbage, but again, that's not the Gramsci Althusser was fond of. "fuck althussreearl kajdf fuck gramsic fuck them all dere politics wer not da same as mine fuck them fuck everything fuck marxism too its so lame and intellectual im just gonna become a primmie like cammatte did cuz dats da logical conclusion of my stupid fucking theoretecial foundations lol" It's true though. This is completely the ass end of Bordiga, the reason why I am not

18 a bordigist, even though I hold the man in high regard. Cammatte, someone you often cite, was a full-fledged and committed bordigist, the logical conclusion of his politics was primitivism and the marxist homage to post-modernism - unlike Kautsky there was not betrayal as far as Cammatte went, this was a linear, logical result of his political development. And yours too, I suspect. I've never fucking implied that the state can become a "tool of the next" class, Lenin made it very clear that the foundations of the state must be radically different. But the purpose of the state, as an instrument of class repression is the same. When I claim the importance of the conquest of the state, I mean the conquest of hegemony, the conquest of legitimacy and finally and most importantly, the conquest of monopoly over power and force. Shut the fuck up, you fucking child, bring forth these citations that would allow users to assess I "critically support" chavez and the PSUV. When the fuck have I called for a defense of the PSUV? When have I ever even critically supported them? It's you who showers them with such credit, it's you who gives them the benefit of thinking they are solely responsible for all political developments, and class based struggles in Venezuela. "As evidenced by my Third world Caesarism"? Have I ever really, formally accepted this? I claimed it was a proposal to a problem no one has ever been able to solve today, I did not claim it was a solution. But fuck it, fuck forming reasonable conclusions, let's assume all of this is true, let's assume I 'critically support Chavez' and that I think that 'the state will remain the same, but in different hands'. Let's assume that. How the fuck does that mean I am a Kautskyan? How is this distinctly and exclusively Kautskyan? Where the fuck is Kautsky coming from? Kautsky was never distinguished by his reformism, this was something that long preceded him. Again, put down your Revleft dictionary and go learn before you open your mouth. I mean what a fucking clown you are, Remus. You don't know shit, I mean that whole-hardheartedly, you literally don't know what the fuck you're talking about. What did I do? This website doesn't define my fucking politics, or my views. This website isn't my life, so shut the fuck up with your "WHAT DID YOU DO WHILE I WAS ENRICHING MYSELF WITH INFORmATION!!!111". You don't know anything about me, but I know for a fact that you're doing all of this to fit in this website. It's stupid. It's good that in a year you've dedicated such effort into trying

19 to understand Marxism, but it takes a bit more than a fucking year to really apply this wholly. It takes time to understand everything in the grand scheme of things, apply them, to really apply this and understand reality in terms of whole truth based on these premises, something I have been starting to realize in the past year, myself. You're see soon enough too, Remus. You have absolutely no fucking right to talk down to me, I've been exactly where you have. Maybe if you've been here for a bit longer you would have realized that about two years back I was a self- proclaimed Bordigist, too. But holy hell, when the fuck did I claim that Imperialism had no relevancy? As far as understanding capitalism today goes, it is all the more relevant than it ever has been. What I did claim was that Lenin's thesis on national liberation had no relevancy today, it were to be applied today we would be compelled to support the Taliban, among many other reactionary anti-imperialist movements. We live in a world where national-determination has been rendered impossible, capitalism has truly globalized. IS THIS A "BERNSTEIN-ESQUE" POSITION, TOO? NO! It's more like an application of Luxemburg if anything else. Didn't the fucking ICC say something along the lines of criticism of Lenin's take on national liberation, too? You're ridiculous. And Remus, what political party are you a part of? When have you engaged in the class struggle? I have done nothing of this sort, I have not helped the proletarian movement revive one bit, and neither have you. All we have is theory, that's it right now. I will admit it, at the risk of sounding arrogant - yes my Marxism is much more mature, developed and sophisticated than yours, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind of that. And what's this of the Sorelian myth? The same one you, Takayuki, among other bordigists were quick to concur with? You can't call me a reformist, a Kautskyan, a DNZist, a Bernstein-esque socialist, or all this other shit, and then consistently recognize that I have read Sorel and that I am interested in the Sorelian social myth. Remus sais "You're all the same!!!!!111 no differencesdf!!!!! any1 who does;t ascribe to bordigsitm is a bastard of the worker's movemnent! I decide who the degenerate is, me, da year long marxist remus! In this sense, Lenin was also a bastard of the worker's movement, he broke

20 with the conventional Marxism of the time in order to protect the legacy of Marxism. Yeah Rafiq, neither you and I can bring back the class - but that's not because "we aren't Lenin" Remus Bleys I mean why the fuck would you even posit an argument here? If you agree that we have no impact on anything, why argue when you know perfectly well what I meant? Lenin was a skilled leader who was the result of an advanced and battle hardened worker's movement. So it is because none of us are a Lenin of sorts, there is no worker's movement. I helped organize some people from my city into a political group devoted to the discussion and application of Marx, Engels and Lenin in the world today, in hopes of preserving the Invariant Program. I am sure that is more than you and your SPUSA have ever done. Remus Bleys Remus! Savior of Communism! He has helped organize some people from his city into a political group devoted to the discussion and application of Marx, Engels and Lenin in the world today, in hopes of preserving the invariant program. Honestly it's just as worthless as anything the SPUSA has ever done, but I'm curious to see how far this little political group of yours is going to get. If I think that the SPUSA is the solution to the problem and the harbinger of the revolution, than you are so delusioned as to think your little club is going to be some proletarian vanguard. as your posts contains numerous irrelevancies that go on about nothing Remus Bleys The same posts you, and others have appreciated until when? What changed? Are you fucking kidding me? Lenin has never stressed that the proletariat should 'allow capitalist development' to occur in order for the conditions for a wholly proletarian movement to develop. For fuck's sake, the October revolution is the complete rejection of such bullshit! Don't sit here and fucking act like the peasantry weren't the sole result of the complete shitstorm following the October revolution, besides of course the failure of the proletarian revolution to spread. Except I, even DNZ, have never posited that the "bourgeois state" can be used to "make socialism". THE WHOLE POINT of DNZ's little theory is to eradicate the bourgeois class while at the same time retaining class independence. And even then, this is not anything remotely exclusive or distincitve about Bernstein, Bernstein was distinguished by his "evolutionary socialism" which suggest that socialism would naturally evolve out of parliamentary reforms. So explain, Remus,

21 fucking explain to me how that has any relevancy to the discussion at hand. Oh look at you, "in that sense" SHUT THE FUCK UP, there is no "sense" to that, Bernstein has nothing to fucking do with that. What a waste of fucking time you are. All of your arguments rely on presumptions about my views that are wholly, absolutely and consistently lies. All you revisionists, all you opportunists, all you bastard children of the workers movement are interconnected Remus Bleys And you're an authority to define who the "revisionists, opportunists and bastard children are?" YOU? The same meaningless slander could be applied to anyone, Lenin included. Was Lenin a revisionist? He was just as much a revisionist as Althusser was, re-approaching Marxism and applying it to his current conditions. Lenin revolutionized Marxism whilst the second international fiends retained the same constrianed understanding that logically played into reformism. But no one challenged traditional discourse as much as Bordiga, whose anti-democratic tirades, against the mass movement, can be called "bastard" if we want to be vicious and slanderous. After all, Bordiga's successor, Camatte, became a primitivist, if anything Bordigism is this obscure little creature, this mutation of Lenin's politics. But that's not what I hold, or what I have ever held. Using your logic, however, we can come to that conclusion. Even then, even if we assume they are "opportunists" and so on, what an astronomically ignorant thing to say. NO they are not interconnected, kautsky has nothing to do with the bastard Mao, Tito has very little to do with Bernstien AT ALL. I don't think you know who the fuck Bernstein was, I don't even think you know anything about Bernstein at all. Also you make it as if every figure from the Second international was some kind of bastard reformist, like Kautsky. You forget that Lenin held Bebel in high regard until his death. All you're good for is arguing with a straw man. That's how you get on, that's how you are able to reply to me. Fuck you. So now that you've realized what an utter and complete dipshit you are, you're going to go on about something new, you want to open up a new discussion about the theory of alienation. You don't see the contradictions of your views, Remus. Alienation is a completely Hegelian theory, as was Marx's whole thesis on the

22 essence of man. My problem with Alienation is not so much that I oppose it, but that it is separate from Marx's footing in the social sciences. It is Communist, alienation is an ideological theory, not a scientific one - you're missing that there are two uses of alienation concerning Marx - the first is the essence of Man, which was completely Hegelian, and the second was the materialist conception of alienation - found in Capital and grunduissie, which I wholly ascribe to. How could you oppose Hegel, if you claim you are a Marxist, and oppose Althusser's theory of the epistemological break? NO ONE was as anti-Hegelian as far as Marxism goes as Althusser. But you want to know what a complete and utter fucking moron you are, Remus? My opposition to humanism comes from its religious view of humanity (as if they are above and beyond their material conditions), its absurd view of dialectical materialism, its libertarianism, and it's hegelianism Remus Bleys Jesus christ. Now I feel like giving up. Everyone listen up - Remus actually believes that Humanism, an ideological trend that has it's origins in the Renaissance, is inhernetly libertarian, it presumes dialectical materialism, it is libertarian, and here's the best part: REMUS THINKS ALL FORMS OF HUMANISM ARE INHERENTLY HEGELIAN! WHAT A FUCKING JOKE! Would it surprise you if I told you that post ACTUALLY made me laugh? I actually DERIVE humor from this little snip - you actually fucking think humanism has anything to do with any of those things? Sure HEGEL was a humanist, sure there are libertarians who could be 'humanists' SURE, there are dialeticians, Trotskyists mostly, who are humanists at core. BUT DOES THAT MEAN HUMANISM, which is pervasive in all forms of bourgeois thought, presumes all of those things? NO! You DON'T UNDERSTAND LOGIC, REMUS! Grow the FUCK up. I would physically assault you for such nonsense if you were in my presence, gods, what a stupid fucking thing to say. This just goes to show the intricacies and contradictions of your skewed, absolutely ridiculous logic. Yes, it makes you a reactionary, you can't oppose humanism and then claim young Marx and old Marx were one and the same, and still call yourself a Marxist. And if you oppose humanism for being unscientific and inconsistent with Marx's historical materialism, well, buddy, you've just stepped aboard the Althusser train. Unless of course there's something else, some other reason as to why you oppose Althusser... Let's review

23 First you claim you oppose him becasue he makes the distinction between young and old marx. You claim that there are no differences, that they are the same. You then say Althusser, unlike you, wasn't a Marxist. Okay. Then you claim you oppose humanism - HOLD ON, doesn't that mean you're not the Marxist - but wait! If you ARE A MARXIST and oppose humanism, while presuming that Marx was consistently and always a humanist, that means you are REVISING Marxism and purging it of it's humanist tendencies (the same goes for Hegel). So what makes Althusser this bastard revisionist, and not you? Use your head. You're right, I linked Left Wing childishness and the petty bourgeois mentality but only because Links claimed that "having a petty bourgeois mentality" is not possible and that it's just slander. I claimed that it is possible, and Lenin wrote about it. IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ICC. He then, respectfully, claimed that an appeal to authority is not grounds for truth, which I could not disagree with. NONE THE LESS - you "calling me out" for linking that was completely - just STUPID on your part, there's nothing else to call it. Just stupidity. You're a child, shut the fuck up, sit back and learn for a change. You try to be edgy Remus because your so-called "revolutionary totalitarianism" IS NOT NORMALIZED, you WHOLLY regard it as "extreme" which is why you call it totalitarianism to begin with. The difference is that mine is completely honest, it comes from the head and heart, it is my standard for normality, you however think it's some kind of fucking joke to piss off liberals. That's the difference, Remus, that's why you're just some edgy fucking kid who will grow out of your "rebellious" phrase, perhaps not long after you adopt primitivism, or some other obscure postmodern bourgeois ideological trend. - What a dismissive little shit you are. "BLAH BLAH BLAH LALALALALLAA NOPE DIS HAZ TO FIT MY CATAGORIZATION OF U, I WIL NOT LISSEN MY MIND HAS BEEN MADE UP LALALALALA". As if you have any right to be dismissive. - Some quotes by the anti-revisionist crusader Remus:

24 14 January Ah yes sorels social myth. I've been looking for about a year for hours writings on this, you have a link? I agree ideology expresses some greater truth that just can't be pour into words. Remus Bleys 22 January - The sophisticated, developed Bordigist doesn't know about mystical Communism Can you elaborate what you mean when you say communism is mystic? So mystic as in the sense that communism will be defended as if it was a religion? Mystic add if to say that the proletarian interests are moral? That kind of stuff? Or mystic in the sense that the individual is destroyed all that remains is the collective (this is what I gleaned from an il partito article) Remus Bleys How about from Takayuki September 2013 That's good Rafiq, proper teaching of the true mystical organic totalitarian communism. I like your style. Takayuki 6 September No, no, I agree fully with you and I share your position. I did not mean that in a mocking manner. Takayuki To them, my posts are incoherent, and make no sense: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...1&postcount=22 'Remus liked this post' So whose inconsistent again? Here's a post I made about Chavez: Obviously I am a supporter http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...89&postcount=4 A bordigist named Brutus thanked this. Does he support Chavez too, Remus? - Finally, here's a good quote explaining what I meant in regards to National Liberation, "It has not occurred to them that state capitalism would be a step forward as compared with the present state of affairs in our Soviet Republic. If in approximately six months’ time state capitalism became established in our Republic, this would be a great success and a sure guarantee that within a year socialism will have gained a permanently firm hold and will have become invincible in our country." This is from a work you should know (pb mentality), and there is also the "socialism is impossible without modern scale science and technology" (or

25 something like that). The October Revolution was a rejection of bourgeois politics, but not capitalist development. That is what I mean in regards to national liberation, that the feudal elements need to be destroyed, and perhaps make alliances with bourgeois forces (February) but ultimately is under political control of the proletarian. Compare this to a nation "developed" by capital, that has already destroyed its "feudal bonds," in which the methods of a National-Liberation would be completely backwards. Remus Bleys What cack! So first I'm the reformist, but you're the one claiming that the allowance of capitalist development is the solution to the problem of proletarian dictatorship in the third world? I'M THE BERNSTEIN-SOCIALIST, BUT YOU"RE THE ONE CLAIMING THAT CAPITALIST DEVELOPMENT IS NECESSARY!? Of COURSE it WAS necessary in Russia, but only as a result of the failure for the revolution to spread. PROLETARIAN DICTATORSHIP and the reinforcement of capitalist relations, capitalist development are INCOMPATIBLE and CANNOT coexist. DNZ has, quite simply proposed that a proletarian alliance with the rural petite bourgeoisie, or the peasantry unified by strong executive power, would be in control of the state which could struggle against the bourgeois class and whatever potential counter-revolution for the building of socialism. There's a reason why users have accused him of "Stalinism" and so on. Even if this is not a solution, it is much more Communist than yours, which suggests CLASS COLLABORATION with the bourgeoisie. The February revolution was NOT an alliance with the bourgeois parties, for fuck's sake not even a year later the Bolsheviks abolished the provisional government. Of course state-capitalist development was Lenin's only solution - that doesn't mean it's a DESIRABLE outcome, you do realize Lenin was not optimistic about the situation - the fact of the matter is that capitalist development is the signification of the revolution's FAILURE. Unless of course, you want to argue that the October revolution had not failed, and that the retention of the proletarian dictatorship was possible. The majority of the proletariat had perished in the civil war, it was up to the state to take the role of the bourgeoisie in assimilating the peasantry. Also, was Lenin really correct here? Most Left Communists would not agree, socialism was NOT established in the republic, the result was a catastrophe. Stalin was not this gross mutation of Lenin, he was a logical successor GIVEN the

26 circumstances. Had Lenin grown old, he would most likely not have been very different. - Oh Jesus rafiq I was interested in your conception of "mysticism" and why you undertook Sorel's myth. Of course ideology grips the Masses and becomes a material force (young marx Oh noes!1111) that doesn't mean I agreed with the Sorelian conception - which doesn't mean I can't read on about it to see if there's anything of worth (which, in this case, the answer was no). Remus Bleys No shut the fuck up, don't act like that wasn't completely and wholly different to how you approached me recently, with such venomous hostility. Myths are not the materialization of ideas, they are the expression of material interests in terms of ideas, no matter how irrational, and so on they are. THAT is the Marxist implication you can draw from Sorel's social myth - not to disregard there is something deeply problematic about Sorel as a whole, starting from his anti- materialism. Gramsci, whom you despise, further elaborated and touched upon this. Re: Whats a left-wing Anarchist without Communism? The rejection of labeling themselves as communists is a matter of historical tradition, not ideology. It's comprable to Maoist parties being identified by the 'M- L' addition, I.e. Communist Party of Greece (ML). They're all Marxist leninists, but it's tradition.

27 Re: Is there any actual hope for Parliamentary politics? Without legitimacy there can be no dictatorship. When the fires of the revolution rage in the hearts of the damned, when the proletariat has torn down the idols of bourgeois mysticism through blood and sweat, there you will find the legitimacy of the proletarian dictatorship. The revolution will never be legitimized by the global capitalist order because the revolution itself is the armageddon of the global capitalist order - it will be legitimized in the eyes of even the most embedded in bourgeois ideology, it is a new universe that which no ideological power can triumph, or categorize into it's own ideological world. Following the Bolshevik revolution and it's failure, the most effective means of de-legitimization was antisemitism - a means of categorizing such an event within bourgeois ideological proximity (that there was an international jewish conspiracy, in which Communism was merely an instrument). And no wonder it held so much sway, liberalism had proved unable to define the October revolution on it's own terms. When the workers across Russia were mobilized to fight under the red star, they did not do so out of conscious self interest or even force. They did so - they were willing to die for the universality erected by the October revolution. What many forget is that the revolution brought forth a new ideological system unseen before in the history of the workers movement as a sole result of the seizure of power, almost mythological. It is hard to notice - it was not long before it degenerated into the logic of capital, but it was there. - All hegemonic unions today have been absorbed and serve only to reproduce the

28 conditions of exploitation. Labor has been in retreat for quite some while. - To Takayuki: Domination? The whole point of socialism and communism is to create a humane society to replace the mishap caused by capitalism, not to become capitalist by dominating people! And when I say a government that cares about it's people, I mean it. Look to an event during the protests in Greece. When a old woman asked her neighbors to help her find her lost dog, the council decided to help her. Why? They didn't want to control anyone, they wanted to liberate people from their boring days of slaving away at some job. That is the future, a free society where people co-operate with each other and live freely, and control will not solve that problem. Socialisme ou Barbarie The point of communism is not to milk the dried, poisoned teet of bourgeois intimate feelings of kindness, the point is not to gently caress the bastard offspring of capitalist relations. "Oh!" You'd say, "let's help out poor uncle Joe whose bakery is under attack!" And so on. Where does it end? The point of communism is to violently instill a new morality, to unveil the falseness of the capitalist ideological universe, and to repress and dominate the class enemies. It isn't pretty, it isn't sweet and nice as though you're helping an old women across the street. It is the revolutionary locomotive blazing with fire through the streets indiscriminate if grandma is crossing or not. - Oh, I'm sorry that I give a damn about people and I don't see violence as an immediate answer to the problems that we face. If the goal of Marxism and Anarchism is to create a free, happy society, then we should make sure that those who want to live freely don't have chests filled with lead. Socialisme ou Barbarie The goal of Marxism was never to "create a new society" to begin with, none the less a "Happy" society. Marxism is the means by which we understand humans categorically as animals and their social (rather than biological, which was essentially what Darwin did) being. The most ardent defender of capitalist relations, an honest member of the bourgeoisie can be a Marxist, he can recognize the world for what it is and simply choose the side of his class. Happiness is never the goal of any revolutionary. Happiness is to be content, happiness is weakness. - So when Marx wrote, "The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it," you think the "change" he is talking about isn't a transformation of society into a new (non-exploitative) type? Five Year Plan

29 No, the change he is talking about has nothing to do with a 'new society' (Or more specifically, the 'creation' of one). The point is that legitimacy is gained in the process of attempting to change society, for Marx communism is not a state of affairs which is to be established. Communism is the active process by which the proletarian class struggles against the enemy, Communism is the ideology which smashes through the carcass of bourgeois thought. Marx's problem with philosophers is that while they might have 'understood' the nature of things, they did so comfortably within the confines set forth by those in power, set forth by the existing social order. It is not so much that they failed in their action, it is that they failed to challenge the existing order in the first place. Marx does not say we ought to consciously change society into something we find appealing or desirable. The very nature of our desires, the very nature of our appeals is shaped by our ideological presumptions, the same ones set forth by the existing order. It is no wonder bourgeois ideologues who 'want communism' do so for reasons only logical in the parameters of bourgeois ideology. Marx means in the process of fighting, in the process of struggle society changes. This is the difference, and it is crucial. When those - dare I say utopians, those bourgeois ideologues who speak of 'creating a better, more humane society', they see the Communist movement in all its stormy revolutionary outbursts as nothing short of a tool to realize their utopian fantasies. While on the contrary, the struggle itself, the fight against those in power is a universe of its own for any radical. Understanding Communism as derived from premises now in existence, we logically understand that any talk of a new society is merely an ideological component of the struggle for the conquest of the state. Rather than the revolution being a tool to create a new society, the very notion of creating a new society is a tool of the revolution. The truth is that finding these utilitarian models to maximize efficiency, even dare I say to organize production consciously in a different way is a relatively trivial thing. This is not the goal, the changes brought forth from re-organization of relations to production are a result of changes in power. - So in other words Marxism as a body of thought is drawn from the real movement of workers to create a new society, and is in turn used to support that effort. Five Year Plan No, that's Communism as an ideology. Workers do not fight because they have

30 created an idea of a new society which they seek to at all costs pursue. This new society (or the notion of it) is derived from the struggle of workers to pursue their real, immediate material interests, starting from petty trade union struggles to the struggle for the conquest of the state (The Communist movement). The role of Marxism is a disciplined, scientific understanding of our social being, as well as to add a radical dimension to trade union consciousness that goes beyond simple material interests. The merger of Marxism and the worker's movement is the politicization of this movement, the discipline and adoption of a coherent and consistent ideological universe. Marxism, above all things is how we understand. And the Communism, the Communism from Muntzer, the Communism of revolutionary France, the Communism of the Bolsheviks is more like a possession of the mind and soul, Communism is the persistent irrational outbursts of the revolutionary spirit. We think of religious fundamentalists being "possessed" by their beliefs, as though an otherworldly set of ideas consume them. Nothing is more true for communism. Perhaps my post needs to be a bit fucking longer, actually. No, it's not a simple point, it's not something that can be summed up in a few sentences. And your interpretation is complete proof of that. - Communist workers don't struggle to create a communist society? That's news to me. Five Year Plan I would imagine a great many things inherent to Marxism are news to you, seeing the sheer poverty of your understanding of it. But no, there is no room for intellectual laziness here. They don't struggle to create a new society, they struggle because their immediate interests are opposed to that of their class enemy. Communist workers wish to impose a wholly new ideological universe upon the enemy, it is a class war inristic to capitalist relations. Rhetoric about creating a new society is nothing more than an ideological expression of this very real, and grounded struggle for power (NOT for a utopia, and you can call it whatever the fuck you want, in the end what you among other users speak of is nothing short of utopia). But even then, the rhetoric we have seen from actually existing communist movements, from the Paris Commune to the Bolsheviks, is nowhere near the

31 infantile, delusional nonsense that users here like to tout. It is as though Communism is just another internet fetish, some kind of style or preference (I mean like at Reddit communism if you don't believe me). Again, all of this stems from your lack of understanding of so many things. Philistinism is so prevalent today among the Left especially, everything which is not simplistic is dismissed and distasted. The situation here is anything but simplistic. - Watch out, Rafiq. Your second-international social democracy is showing. Workers in general struggle because their immediate interests are opposed to those of their class enemy. Communist workers understand the link between those immediate struggles and the larger project to establish a society free from exploitation. As a result, they don't just struggle for day-to-day reforms. They couch the push reforms into their struggle for a new type of society. It is for this reason that it makes perfect sense to say that (some, revolutionary) workers are struggling for a society free from exploitation. Not all of them do, obviously. The goal of communist workers is to enlist the non-communist ones into the struggle, the real movement that Marx wrote about, which is going on right now. Five Year Plan Communism is nothing more than the more coherent, disciplined and specialized means by which workers fight for their immediate interests. When I speak of immediate interests, I do not mean higher wages, reforms, or a better quality of life. I speak of immediate interests as in their immediate conditions as proletarians, their immediate desire to conquer the state and destroy the class enemy. Their immediate interests, as opposed to some eternal 'idea of a new society' that is exclusive only to the internet, their immediate interests within the class struggle. THIS is what I mean. Their immediate interests are grounded in the existing society, the existing reality, which is in itself its own destruction. Your Communism and the Communism you speak of is wholly abstract, wholly petty bourgeois. As I said before, like the stoics of Rome who spoke of 'freedom 'and 'liberty' while utterly despising the wretched and filthy masses, their abstract notions of 'freedom' only served to reproduce a greater oppression. And thus, your abstract conception of Communism has nothing to do with the creation of a new society, it is nothing more than the means by which you attempt to legitimize the existing order. You fear a Communism with a modern context, because you are a petty bourgeois ideologue. Workers do not struggle for a new society, they struggle for power. And all talk of a new society is not the manifestation of their 'reformist' prerogatives, but their struggle for power. Communism is an ideology among many ideologies, but what distinguishes it is what it really means, not what it claims to mean.

32 What you call "rhetoric about creating a new society" is nothing more than than expression of a scientific understanding of the capital-labor relationship that is responsible for creating all immediate struggles for reforms. It seems you have a fear of people talking about revolution and socialism and a new society. I wonder if this has anything to do with your petty-bourgeois fear that workers, upon hearing such arguments and learning from them in struggle, might actually create that society. I'll leave that for others to decide. Five Year Plan And now you're running wild with your misconceived presumptions, how the fuck do I argue with someone arguing with a straw man? Rhetoric about creating a new society is not the result of any scientific understanding alone, you cannot be outside ideology and the merger of the worker's movement with Marxism (BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT inherently one and the same) entails a scientific recognition of existing conditions as well as the irrational (irrational by present standards of reason), hell bent and eternal struggle for Communism. It is the unity of Marxist discipline with the Communist spirit. Do you forget that the Communist movement existed long before Marx? But that's not even what I'm talking about. I'm talking about: But even then, the rhetoric we have seen from actually existing communist movements, from the Paris Commune to the Bolsheviks, is nowhere near the infantile, delusional nonsense that users here like to tout. It is as though Communism is just another internet fetish, some kind of style or preference (I mean like at Reddit communism if you don't believe me). Rafiq Don't you dare claim that these petty bourgeois students and their utopian pipedreams is anything resemblent of 'workers talking about socialism and revolution'. I'm not going to stand for some Trotskyist shitbird come and tell me I 'fear revolution'. Fuck you, you petty bourgeois swine. You don't know anything about my psyche, you don't know anything about my Marxism or Marxism in general because it is beyond the constrains of your petty bourgeois, abstract understanding of the existing order. What cack! He speaks of me 'fearing' revolution. Truly, the real cowards who fear revolution are those who wish to obfuscate socialism as some kind of abstract utopia which is to be established, truly only those who fear a proletarian dictatorship and the stormy alterations of revolution are the ones who wish to divorce Communism from existing conditions, whose Communism exists from past struggles, whose Communism they know damned well will never reach the land of the living. Only those who speak of socialism as some kind of preference, rather than a real movement are those

33 that fear the fires of the revolution. You fear, above all things a New Communism that poses a real threat to the existing order. Yo, Rafiq. You're full of shit. Marx talks about a "new society" and "communist society" in some fairly important works. I mean, shit son, just read critique of the gotha programme. Marx talking about communist SOCIETY.. Ohhh noooooo. "The emancipation of the oppressed class thus implies necessarily the creation of a new society." K. Marx, PoP. Brotto Rühle First of all shut the fuck up, I'm not your bro, I'm not your friend, this isn't a fucking casual conversation, speak clearly or get the fuck out you degenerate piece of shit. No one denys Marx talks of a new society (GOD you all just don't get it, do you? Hint - A doesn't always equal A in different contexts!), the proletarian dictatorship and the conquest of power, of course that entails the creation of a new society! But for Marx, the point is that it is the struggle for emancipation, for power that is the real struggle, that is the struggle with a modern context. Worker's don't fight directly for this new society that have no idea will look like, they fight for power and the nature of hteir fight is derived from premises now in existence. Like I said, I was talking about this anyway: But even then, the rhetoric we have seen from actually existing communist movements, from the Paris Commune to the Bolsheviks, is nowhere near the infantile, delusional nonsense that users here like to tout. It is as though Communism is just another internet fetish, some kind of style or preference (I mean like at Reddit communism if you don't believe me). Rafiq Don't you dare associate Marx with such nonsense, as though Marx would have been on reddit talking with all the students about how cool communism is going to be. Shut the fuck up and get out Rae, you've been discredited once, do yourself a favor and don't do it again. - I'm not going to waste time having a semantics argument with you, the dichotomy I was making was immediate, real interests vs. abstract utopia. If you do not believe that a proletarian dictatorship is capable of being a real, immediate interest, then you are not a Communist anyway. The proletarian dictatorship will not be realized overnight, the revolution will not happen in a day. Revolutionary consciousness, whether Trotskyist cults agitate them or not, will develop through the coarse of real struggles with the ruling class. Only in the

34 process of this struggle does the proletariat speak of a 'new society', just as the romantic bourgeoisie spoke of a new society of civic virtue, and so on. Of coarse this does not mean revolutionary consciousness develops spontaneously, but the merger of Marxism and the proletarian movement, as Marx knew very well, can only arise with the spontaneous development of trade-union consciousness. We can never truly have a real, objective "vision" of this new society because such a society can only arise after the seizure of power, i.e. in circumstances and conditions that simply are not present, the revolution is not about to happen, revolutionary consciousness is not nearly built upon, no one can speculate about what this new society would ever possibly look like today and any talk of one is just nonsense. Honestly, you didn't even know what I was talking about anyway (that is, your internet communism). You keep ignoring the most important segments of my post, and it's as though I have to rehash the same shit, only to have you most likely ignore it again. Five Year Plan, I'm sorry but you really shouldn't be arguing with me if you can't even grasp my own arguments. Why can't you just admit you were wrong and move on? Why do you so tirelessly look for these semantic openings to new straw man arguments? I'm sure it would make you feel really good if I truly was arguing for gradual reforms, if my alleged "social democratic politics" were showing, but they don't even exist, you were wrong, now move on. Who is speaking of an "eternal idea of a new society"? We're talking about the Marxian vision of communism, which didn't exist until Marx wrote about it in response to the real movement of workers struggling against capitalism in the 19th century. Unless you think humankind developed from Marx's pen two hundred years ago, which would actually be consistent with all the other crazy ideas you spew on this forum, visions originating in the 19th century aren't "eternal." Five Year Plan Communism as a movement as well as the Communist idea existed before Marx, I know you don't know much about either of those things but it's important to know before you even further de-legitimize yourself. And I'm not just talking about Utopianism, there was a real Communist movement of which Marx did not create or found. But you're right, any speculation Marx had made about this 'new society' derived from the conditions of 19th century capitalism, and more importantly the conditions of the revolutionary proletariat movement of which he did not himself create. Marx was analyzing the revolutionary movement (which he was A PART OF) and from such a movement was he able to speculate upon what a proletarian dictatorship would look like. I mean for fuck's sake, the Paris Commune had very

35 little to do with Marx. The difference of course today is that there does not exist such a movement, the embryo of any new society cannot be found anywhere, it is thus absurd to speak of being a Communist because "you want a better society". Of course for a delusional Trotskyist, I am sure there are plenty of irrelevant and worthless organizations which you consider a real vehicle of the class struggle, small sects you consider the locomotive of the revolution. I'm sure such feelings make you feel safe and comfortable, as deep down you probably know they're false. A real Communist movement, on the other hand, and the prospect of revolution in the 21st century could only ever terrify you. But let's say for the sake of argument that overthrowing the bourgeois state is immediately realizable because we're in a revolutionary situation, and it therefore makes sense to speak of proletarian revolution as an "immediate interest" and "immediate demand." What does this say about your aversion to "visions of a new society"? How will workers be overthrowing the state? With their minds wiped blank, and no idea circulating about what kind of society they hope to establish to guide their immediate action of overthrowing the state? Won't the visions they have, the plans in their heads, constitute "visions of a new society?" And aren't those visions integral to the movement? And can't those visions be spoken about in abstraction, as a society free from class exploitation and institutionalized coercion emerging from control over the means of production? Five Year Plan Five Year Plan, when I say you don't understand my argument, I'm not calling you stupid, and i'm not insulting you. I'm saying you genuinely don't understand. Why? My point is not that workers will never have an idea of a new society in their heads. My point is that workers do not struggle (primarily) to realize this idea, I said workers do not struggle because they want a new society, they struggle not for your abstract utopia, but as a result of existing conditions. And I know you believe otherwise, because you're a Trotskyist, probably in some small Trotskyist sect thinking that your ideas (which have no context today) are going to somehow immediately be adopted by the proletariat. You struggle, on one hand, to realize your clever and brilliant ideas, the proletariat on the other hand struggles to achieve its ends. The revolution does not occur, as though the revolutionary proletariat were some obscene UFO cult, the idea of Communism cannot be some imposition on this sea of infinite ideas, rather the idea of Communism can only derive (or I should say, have context) from the real movement of the conscious proletariat. Marxism does not come in order to plant the idea of Communism in the heads of the workers (such an idea already follows in the process of their struggle), Marxism is a means of coherent, consistent revolutionary discipline, a means of understanding their present conditions in totality, it is the barrier against the spontaneous development of reactionary ideas (like nationalism) and the

36 political sophistication of the revolutionary movement. On its own the proletarian movement can spiral into something entirely different in the blink of an eye if it does not have solid direction. Five Year Plan, show me a single argument that you have made that was not a straw-man. You're arguing with a ghost of your own creation. In other words, all your bullshit objections to "visions of a new society" rests on this highly economistic and anti- humanist notion of workers being pawns of structural forces over which you assign living, breathing hmans no role in creating, shaping, or transforming. The only "agents" in your own vision of revolution (yes, ironically, you do have a vision, too, albeit a ridiculous one) are "interests," and that's it. In bouts of spontaneism, workers magically channel these interests in revolutionary acts, unaware of the place those interests are leading them. All of this is highly ironic, since your milieu on this forum love to accuse Trotskyists and the transitional method specifically of "economism." Five Year Plan Don't you see that before I even read this little snip from your post, I already knew you were going to accuse me of spontaneism and economism? If you're that predictable, maybe you should re-approach your thought process as a whole, maybe you should think about my level of understanding of your arguments compared to your level of understanding of mine. You're only capable of straw- man, Five Year Plan, you take segments of my post you have absolutely no idea of, and you then accuse me of nonesense, and based on that false presumption you run wild with it, whether you accusing me of "economism" or whether you are saying my "Second international politics are showing". This is the second time you were completely, wholly and dead wrong, Five Year Plan if I was actually in your position, in all honestly, I would admit to my faults. Just come forward and admit you were wrong, admit you were unable to understand what I was talking about. There's nothing wrong with not knowing, but there's something wrong with thinking you do when you don't. (Sorry but 'workers being pawns of structural forces' made me laugh, what does that even mean? That doesn't mean anything, you literally not only have no idea of what I'm talking about, you also have no idea of what structuralists or economic determinists are talking about either. Do you know what structural forces are?). Revolutionary consciousness does not arise spontaneously, but trade-union consciousness does. The skeleton of proletarian struggle, which is most usually present (and was only almost recently present, since the collapse of the Left), must be present in order for those specialized proletarians of revolutionary

37 consciousness (or even, as Lenin had said, the bourgeois intelligentsia), to instill in the movement a political character, a revolutionary political character. Real direction. But this isn't the same as some fetishist, some kid who likes Communism as 'preference' or someone who claims to "be a Communist because the society sounds feasible". Workers do not struggle for such a society, they struggle to achieve their own ends. Evidently, your understanding of what a society will look like after capitalism (an abstract fantasy) does not coincide with their interests as a class. You completely ignore Marx and Engel's understanding of Utopinianism, Five Year Plan. You might cosmetically agree with them, you might change your wording and so on, but they spoke exactly about the kinds of people, like yourself and your ridiculous positions. What the fuck is this supposed to mean? You are either a troll or seriously delusional. Five Year Plan This might be the 100th time I've delved into this, you're a petty bourgeois ideologue in that your Communism is nothing short of an 'intellectual' utopian fetish, it is derived from not the land of the living but previous movements which no longer exist, previous contexts which are not present. In recognizing that your Communism has no place in the world, you take advantage of this and Communism becomes not a manifestation of proletarian interests, but a color, a costume that veils your petty bourgeois character. You claim to oppose the existing order not from the existing conditions of politics and even social relations, but from previous conditions. It's almost like how the American Tea Party uses slogans and rhetoric from late 18th century American politics, though that's not the best example (for a lot of problematic reasons). - You're doing exactly what Nietzsche did when he attacked the Enlightenment thinkers--unmask the power relations behind their claims to objective truth and reduce it as such. MEGAMANTROTSKY Not necessarily Nietzsche, this is an understanding of ideology. Do you think it is possible to be outside of ideology? The answer is no, and for that reason we must recognize ideology does not always coincide with objective reality, it thus yes, veils a real class interest, class relations which are the only meaningful power- relations existent. It's so cute how all the Trotskyists flock to here like pigeons. If the goal of any new society is not happiness, itself a function of the form of society, of generalised living standards [themselves derivatives of various other factors such as participation in society, various freedoms, liberties and rights etc.], then it's pretty bogus and not really worthy of consideration IMO. At least I don't really want to follow an ideology that so easily discards the idea of 'happiness' as some sort of potential end goal.

38 Vladimir Innit Lenin Not necessarily, I think. It might be just a restatement of that old belief that folks wouldn't struggle for a new kind of society if they're relatively content. Therefore proles must be miserable and destitute. LinksRadikal It's even more dangerous in that context, because it becomes embedded in the psyche that happiness, contentment etc. are not conducive to 'our' political goals. I think that's a pretty dangerous route to go down, given the complicated nature of a notion like 'happiness'. Vladimir Innit Lenin You're both very wrong. Happiness is a personal matter and can never be politicized. When I speak of happiness, I speak of happiness in terms of happiness being a life goal, which for any revolutionary it should not and can not. A revolutionary struggles for the revolution indiscriminate of his own happiness. Name me a revolutionary who was ever truly happy. To politicize or prioritize your happiness is to be content, but that does not mean our goal is to create conditions of "misery" for the proletariat. The point is that our revolutionary politics must go beyond the direct and animalistic feelings of misery/happiness. Do you think high living standards lead to happiness? They don't, life in the end is quite a pile of shit, the point is that we wish to create the conditions and space where such petty concepts can be dwindled upon in the first place. But no, as an end goal, happiness has nothing to do with the revolution, it is possible to be 'happy' within the miserable conditions of capitalism, there are plenty of happy spiritualists, we can trick and manipulate our minds into being 'happy'. I go as far as saying that even without alleviating the social ills of the proletariat, it is possible to have a 'happy society', a 'content' society. We must not be concerned with our own happiness as far as the struggle for emancipation goes, and yes even if it means our political goals do not coincide with our own happiness. A happy proletariat can still be an exploited proletariat, a happiness and oppression are not necessarily opposed. To derive happiness from existing circumstances which are oppressive, which is wholly possible indiscriminate of class, is the personal legitimization of such circumstances. A slave, not caring for the prospect of emancipation can happily go on serving his master so long as he recognizes his existing condition as a given. Conversely, a population of miserable and wretched people never equates to revolutionary consciousness. A great majority of those living in ghettos are miserable, are not 'happy' and yet are not the least bit inclined for insurrection. The point is that such dichotomy has no place in our struggle, the struggle for communism goes beyond our present standards of not only reason, but humanity while knowing full well of our imperfection, of our constrains and limits, we can

39 only know the wholeness and perfection of any revolutionary struggle, we can only strive for Communism and the revolution. And look how Vlad, like some kind of pompous liberal technocrat speaks of "dangerous". Good, a revolution is a very dangerous thing, Communism is an incredibly dangerous thing. If you fear danger, than you should re-approach your identification with Communism in the first place. - I mean I cannot even begin to dwell upon how cult-like, how ridiculous and how obscene talk of creating a 'happy society' is. We are not here to find salvation, we are not here to struggle amidst a sea of bloodshed and hardship by deceiving anyone into thinking they're going to have 72 virgins waiting for them in the end. We struggle to the very, bitter end, unapologetically for power. Oh, but notice everyone how Five Year Plan can only address my posts out of context. The next post he makes will ignore all the crucial aspects of my argument, he'll respond to a mere segment out of context and claim "So you're saying...". No, that's not what I'm saying, of course though if he addressed the entire post, he wouldn't be able to make the arguments he does... Perhaps he wouldn't be able to make any arguments at all. - Rafiq, a conversation requires that one's interlocutor be willing to answer questions. You dodged mine, so I will repeat them: How will workers be overthrowing the state? With their minds wiped blank, and no idea circulating about what kind of society they hope to establish to guide their immediate action of overthrowing the state? Won't the visions they have, the plans in their heads, constitute "visions of a new society?" And aren't those visions integral to the movement? And can't those visions be spoken about in abstraction, as a society free from class exploitation and institutionalized coercion emerging from control over the means of production? You can ramble on and on about how I don't understand what you're saying, but if you don't answer these questions, there's really not much remaining for either of us to say. Five Year Plan Such a quetion derives only from your straw man argument. I claimed, specifically that Why? My point is not that workers will never have an idea of a new society in their heads. My point is that workers do not struggle (primarily) to realize this idea, I said workers do not struggle because they want a new society, they struggle not for your abstract utopia, but as a result of existing conditions. Rafiq The difference of course today is that there does not exist such a movement, the embryo of any new society cannot be found anywhere, it is thus absurd to speak of being a Communist because "you want a better society".

40 Rafiq So my point is that yes if a proletarian revolution was imminent, then some idea of what comes after of coarse is logical. That is a given. My point is that the proletariat does not struggle because they want to realize some idea of a new society, the idea of a new society comes as a result of their struggle against the class enemy. They struggle to realize their interests. For example if someone like you were to talk of a new society, it is Utopianism, there is absolutely no context for one. I shouldn't have to say that though, because it was all in my post. Maybe if you actually read the entire post, instead of dismissing it as rambling, you'd understand that. What's your next move? You're going to accuse me of spontaneism, even though anyone who read my post wouldn't. I can't believe how predictable you are. Address my points Five, don't just reply to this little segment, address my post, everything is in there. And no, such a society cannot be thought of in abstraction because the advanced revolutionary proletarian movement in itself is the embryo of such a society, there is no abstraction there - when the prospect of proletarian dictatorship is feasible, there can be no abstraction. But is this what Marx did? In the Communist manifesto, what were his ten planks? They were what to do once the proletariat took power, as a Communist revolution seemed very feasible, very imminent. Were they some kind of picture of a new society? No, they were immediate goals. So if a proletarian dictatorship is imminent, if a revolution is imminent, we would not loll upon some 'new society' but would establish something like the ten planks, Embedded in revolutionary consciousness is the new society itself. The point is not that we impose this idea upon society, the point is that the bourgeois dictatorship is the real imposition, we know precisely what to abolish, we fight against what exists now. Saint Just said every king was a usurper, THIS is the logic we abide by, we do not 'impose' this fantasy on reality, rather we claim reality for our own, we change reality. In struggling with the bourgeoisie, the proletariat already knows what it wants. Before the bolshevik revolution the proletariat had been mobilised en masse by a strong party and were embedded with revolutionary consciousness, within their existing conditions they knew what was to be done, whole segments of the industiral proletariat, virtually all of them were ready to spill their blood in the acquisition of power. That's different from some kid on reddit, or Five Year Plan talking about creating a new happy society, that's different form someone

41 professing their "Marxism" because they want a new, better society. As I said before: Marxism does not come in order to plant the idea of Communism in the heads of the workers (such an idea already follows in the process of their struggle), Marxism is a means of coherent, consistent revolutionary discipline, a means of understanding their present conditions in totality, it is the barrier against the spontaneous development of reactionary ideas (like nationalism) and the political sophistication of the revolutionary movement. On its own the proletarian movement can spiral into something entirely different in the blink of an eye if it does not have solid direction Rafiq Of course you're only going to take a lot of my post out of context, of coarse you won't address any of this in a meaningful way. You'll quote a snip, say "So you're saying..." and run wild with your nonsense. Go ahead, you're so predictable at this point it's a given. - Why are you against utopian thought? You practically write novels of grab-bag metaphors and other such stupidities in your usual responses, yet you can't answer a very simple question? MEGAMANTROTSKY Because I shouldn't have to fucking tell you why I oppose utopian thought! Because It's a given, I'm a Marxist, I oppose it not only for the same reason that any other Marxist does, I oppose utopianism because it is worthless, I oppose utopianism because it only exists to abstractly simulate a society based on the presumptions of the existing order and hegemonic ideology, and claim to be something new. Utopianism reproduces the existing order, solely because it is a form of bourgeois ideological masturbation, like a movie, like a piece of bourgeois literature. Utopianism of course is inherently anti-scientific and wholly idealist, wholly ridiculous, it's childish. Why should I even have to say any of this? WHY DO YOU OPPOSE RELIGION? WHY DO YOU OPPOSE UFO CULTS? what the FUCK is the difference as far as the quality of the question goes? Clearly, Megaman, if you don't attribute ideology to some amorphous trans-historical will to power, you must think that you can exist outside of ideology! Profound! Five Year Plan You speak sarcastically, but who are you to speak sarcastically? You don't even know what I'm talking about! When have I claimed that the proletariat's will to power was "trans-historical"? When did I claim I even adhered to Nietzche's understanding of the will to power/ Nietzche in many respects could be understood in incredibly reactionary terms, this is not what I am getting at. The desire for power is a very real thing, the whole of class struggle is the struggle for power. What other means can classes realize their interests if not for the acquisition of

42 power? Social development aside, if there is no class based will to power why did the bourgeoisie find it necessary to take control of the state? This is ALL the more relevant for the proletariat, who cannot create the social foundations of a new society within capitalism! Whose only means of pursuing their interests is political struggle and the conquest of the state! No one claims this is necessarily trans-historical. YOU CANNOT be outside of ideology, I do not claim to be, but we can understand the NATURE of ideology. - If you can't think of a socialist society in abstraction, then how do you try to persuade other workers to fight for socialism? Five Year Plan Socialism is a movement, an ideology we do not "persuade" workers to join in on trying to realize your stupid fantasies, all Marxists including Marx himself recognize that workers do not struggle to realize our intellectual brilliance, rather we give them the necessary direction in the realization of their class interests. Just because revolutionary consciousness does not develop spontaneously DOES NOT MEAN it must be 'imposed' on the proletariat like some silly religion. The presuppostion of the class struggle itself (WHICH IS NOT the result of the will of Marxists) is where the Marxists have a place in the struggle, the class struggle MUST EXIST in whatever pathetic, petty form, in order for revolutionary consciousness to arise. This however has nothing to do with convincing workers that your abstract society is better than capitalism. Workers, struggling recognize as a given that there is something wrong with our society, it is the struggle for state power that is in the end the ONLY solution for them. So workers won't have a vision of a new society, but "the new society itself" is "embedded in revolutionary consciousness"? Who possesses this "revolutionary consciousness" that contains "the new society itself"? Obviously not workers, in your vision, since you refuse to concede that socialist workers struggling for socialist revolution have a vision for a new society. Five Year Plan We are speaking of the revolutionary movement that would have to have already existed for this 'new society' to be spoken of. The revolutionary movement does not exist because they 'want a new society' in the first place, Five Year Plan. Of course if we presume your false presumptions are correct, then your argument holds ground. As I said, pure spontaneism. No need to persuade the non-revolutionary workers to overthrow the state: they already know they want to overthrow the state. I said In struggling with the bourgeoisie, the proletariat already knows what it wants

43 If the proletariat struggles against the bourgeoisie, which is something that had occurred before Marx, they already know what they want, or should I say, what they DON'T want. The goals of the revolution occur in the process of struggle itself. THIS IS NOT spontaneism because the bourgeois intelligentsia, or the specialized intelligentsia among the proletariat must... WHAT THE FUCK? Wait, I already said all of this! I literally fucking said this! Marxism does not come in order to plant the idea of Communism in the heads of the workers (such an idea already follows in the process of their struggle), Marxism is a means of coherent, consistent revolutionary discipline, a means of understanding their present conditions in totality, it is the barrier against the spontaneous development of reactionary ideas (like nationalism) and the political sophistication of the revolutionary movement. On its own the proletarian movement can spiral into something entirely different in the blink of an eye if it does not have solid direction. Only in the process of this struggle does the proletariat speak of a 'new society', just as the romantic bourgeoisie spoke of a new society of civic virtue, and so on. Of coarse this does not mean revolutionary consciousness develops spontaneously, but the merger of Marxism and the proletarian movem