JacobRichter wrote:
They [the CPGB] don't do much in the way of front work (i.e., Communist Students and HOPI).
I don't understand why everyone has to have front work/groups? Is it not really dishonest?
Stalin Society or Supra-Nationalist mirror image of Nazism!The same people who excuse Stalin for the Ukrainian Famine in which up to 10 million people died by blaming peasants for resisting Stalinist forced collectivisation!The meeting would attract admiring fellow Fascists if they understood the unrequited admiration Stalin had for Adolph.THE STRUGGLE AGAINST FASCISM BEGINS WITH THE STRUGGLE AGAINST BOLSHEVISM!
Pikel wrote:
Arbeiten wrote:
Battlescarred, look it up on the internet, you don't want a hard copy of that shit. but your right it isn't the worst thing about CPG.
I have Stalin's "Problems of Leninism" but I'm neither a Stalinist nor a Leninist. I have it as a historical curiosity. Honest.
Still pales in the face of the protocols
Also, just noticed I wrote CPG. I obviously meant CPB
why not start a thread over there at LibCommunity: "The most disgusting political book on my bookshelf"
Quote:
JacobRichter wrote:
They [the CPGB] don't do much in the way of front work (i.e., Communist Students and HOPI).I don't understand why everyone has to have front work/groups? Is it not really dishonest?
It's usually done dishonestly but I don't think it's dishonest in itself. I think it mainly stems from the need to recruit and the need to get full timers and ambitious party members into positions where they can feel important. It's also an article of faith for Trots: the united front...which the One True Revolutionary Party then takes control of. I think the reason it almost always done dishonestly is because few people are interested in participating in a campaign run by a trot group, so it's best if the punters don't see behind the scenes.
the CPGB doesn't recruit from HOPI, though probably a bit from Communist Students. CS pretty much works autonomously from the CPGB (i.e. the CPGB doesn't tell them what to do or directly control them). The point of HOPI, from what I gather, is that it's actually critical of the Theocracy rather than white washing it and so it was kicked out of STWC but " Encourage individual members of supporters of Hopi to become/remain members of StWC, to support its activities and to raise the exclusion in appropriate coalition forums." (i.e. reform it from within).
That's its policies.
In less than two weeks time hundreds of neo-Nazis and racists will descend on the coastal town of Dover calling for Britain to “close the border”. It is vital that anti-fascists and anti-racists...
A short account of the West Siberian uprising against the Bolsheviks.
Michael Heinrich argues that Marx was not after a “Marxism” as an identity-defining “truth.” Rather, he was more interested in the critical business of undermining certainties.
Please read the posting guidelines before posting. If you see anything which falls outside them please use the down' button on the offending post to flag it for the moderators' attention, or in the case of spam, click the 'spam' button. Site admins are listed here, and feedback can be posted in the feedback forum.
Click here to register now. Logged in users:
Can comment on articles and discussions
Get 'recent posts' refreshed more regularly
Bookmark articles to your own reading list
Use the site private messaging system
Start forum discussions, submit articles, and more...
Kautsky wrote a work called The Driving Forces and Prospects of the Russian Revolution. If you can get Historical Materialism: Witnesses to Permanent Revolution, this work is one of the pieces there.
This was Lenin's review:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1906/dec/00b.htm
The Mensheviks were promoting more or less worker political abstentionism. Supposedly, worker opposition would have been built during the "first stage." The problem, of course, is that the bulk of the Mensheviks went to bed with the not-so-revolutionary Provisional Government (in addition to initially supporting the war and supporting its continuation).
Re. the actual Russian Revolution, both Kautsky and Luxemburg should have criticized instead:
1) The abolition of equal suffrage. As opposed to universal suffrage, which allows elite and petty capitalists, landlords and other rentiers, merchants and brokers, priests, political reactionaries, etc. to vote and be (s)elected, I'm referring here to the one-person-one-vote principle, which was blatantly violated in favour of the proletarian demographic minority and against the peasant demographic majority (via the weighting of urban soviets).
2) The anti-soviet Bolshevik coups d'etat in 1918, when local Bolshevik thugs harangued and shut down local soviets that didn't return Bolshevik majorities.