Phrasemongering

So Lenin is easy to distort.

Watermelon wrote:

So Lenin is easy to distort.

lol

if you take everything out of context, anything is easy to distort

Quote :

you take everything out of context

I do noT!





So that was a funny joke right?

thanks for that point enforcer

Thats why I said it was a joke. Did it maik you laff or you just like stfu moron.

Anarchist.Dagger wrote:

oligarch wrote:

Anarchist.Dagger wrote:

I am for reform that makes clearer the lines between classes. These are reforms that destroy the line between races, sexes, sexual orientation, etc., thus making those oppressed by the capitalist system more likely to view things along class lines rather than racial or gender oriented lines, etc. But economic reforms only make the people more docile, less willing to rise up.

In the example I gave, the steel workers demanded that the firm be nationalized and they succeeded through state means. I fail to see how this blurs distinction between classes much less genders.

That's what you thought i was saying? I'll try to make myself clearer. I was not saying that reforms (like economic ones) that do not shatter racial and sexual boundaries (etc.) blur the lines of class antagonisms. I merely meant to say that ones that do shatter racial and sexual boundaries (etc.) make clearer the class antagonisms, allowing people to begin to see things along class lines rather than racial, sexual, sexual orientation lines. On the other hand, economic reforms, though they do not blur class lines, simply have no pragmatic use in revolutionary tactics. etc...

You yourself said that nationalizing the steel industry is revolutionary and not reformist. Radical reform is necessary for a democratic revolution to reach the point where it can appropriate the means of production and appropriate capital.

oligarch wrote:

You yourself said that nationalizing the steel industry is revolutionary and not reformist. Radical reform is necessary for a democratic revolution to reach the point where it can appropriate the means of production and appropriate capital.

And this radical reform is what, an election? All Chavez needed was to be elected and be backed by the army. This is hardly enough to constitute reform; it's just a changing of the government from one leader to another.

Anarchist.Dagger wrote:

oligarch wrote:

You yourself said that nationalizing the steel industry is revolutionary and not reformist. Radical reform is necessary for a democratic revolution to reach the point where it can appropriate the means of production and appropriate capital.

And this radical reform is what, an election? All Chavez needed was to be elected and be backed by the army. This is hardly enough to constitute reform; it's just a changing of the government from one leader to another.

No, I mean allowing for the appropriation of the means of production and allocation and reallocation of capital. When did I claim holding a routine election was a reform? If Chavez were to take power through a military coup then then he could not validly make a transition to socialism due to the lack of a party-class-masses relationship.

nationalization is definitely NOT revolutionary.

oligarch wrote:

No, I mean allowing for the appropriation of the means of production and allocation and reallocation of capital.

Give an example.

Quote :

When did I claim holding a routine election was a reform?

You didn't, but you didn't give any example or explanation of what this "radical reform" is.

Quote :

If Chavez were to take power through a military coup then then he could not validly make a transition to socialism due to the lack of a party-class-masses relationship.

Validly? If Chavez took power through a violent revolution, he could still have the support of the people and the military. Just because it is violent doesn't mean it is condemned by the people. Look at Cuba.

Anarchist.Dagger wrote:

oligarch wrote:

No, I mean allowing for the appropriation of the means of production and allocation and reallocation of capital.

Give an example.

I already have, the nationalization of cement, steel, and telecommunication industries etc.

Quote :

oligarch wrote:

If Chavez were to take power through a military coup then then he could not validly make a transition to socialism due to the lack of a party-class-masses relationship.

Validly? If Chavez took power through a violent revolution, he could still have the support of the people and the military. Just because it is violent doesn't mean it is condemned by the people. Look at Cuba.

Violence in a revolution is acceptable where it is necessary. I meant that the will of the military is not necessarily the will of the masses and there a government established by a military putsch is not a valid revolutionary government.

oligarch wrote:

I already have, the nationalization of cement, steel, and telecommunication industries etc.

Well then, we'll just have to wait and see if it pans out. Also, i still don't see how reform would work in America. It obviously cannot be this drastic. And i still don't personally condone this, but that would take us off track.

Quote :

Violence in a revolution is acceptable where it is necessary. I meant that the will of the military is not necessarily the will of the masses and there a government established by a military putsch is not a valid revolutionary government.

I've never met a Leninist before that was concerned about the will of the masses. But if that's how you feel, then good.

Anarchist.Dagger wrote:

oligarch wrote:

I already have, the nationalization of cement, steel, and telecommunication industries etc.

Well then, we'll just have to wait and see if it pans out. Also, i still don't see how reform would work in America. It obviously cannot be this drastic. And i still don't personally condone this, but that would take us off track.

Quote :

Violence in a revolution is acceptable where it is necessary. I meant that the will of the military is not necessarily the will of the masses and there a government established by a military putsch is not a valid revolutionary government.

I've never met a Leninist before that was concerned about the will of the masses. But if that's how you feel, then good.

Chavez should nationalize all aspects of the economy before any central gov can be dismantled - if he allowed private interests to their own devices they would eventually take up political power.

Quote :

Chavez should nationalize all aspects of the economy

That would be:
a) reformism
b) state capitalism
You support those still?

SHABAZZ FREEMAN JUST JOINED THE BRAWL!!!!!!!!

[will edit later today]

Watermelon wrote:

Quote :

Chavez should nationalize all aspects of the economy

That would be:
a) reformism
b) state capitalism
You support those still?

While he's in power he might as well get rid of the private parasites in the system. Remember he's only an agent of the people so dismantling the state from within is OK in my book.