creating a new forum

help is needed!

Like an new Eposh?

ya but only for the radical left.

Hoxhaist wrote:

You could always use forumotion.com, which is what this site uses.

I think he already knew that

you know im down. We need a stimulating place for the radical left. This place is full oc cappies and the discusions usually have nothing to do with the radical left but more like what your favorite food is. This place is good for casual talking but bad for political minds.

Hoxhaist wrote:

You could always use forumotion.com, which is what this site uses.

have you ever made a site?

Well, I'm sticking to this site. But if the proposal is interesting I'll gladly join and be more active than in EMY.

i thank you sirs!
if any reactionaries try to join, you will be perma banned

mononokifool wrote:

you know im down. We need a stimulating place for the radical left. This place is full oc cappies and the discusions usually have nothing to do with the radical left but more like what your favorite food is. This place is good for casual talking but bad for political minds.

U got to be kiddin right?
There like 6-8 active cap's and there like 10+ commie,scoalists

CoolKidX wrote:

U got to be kiddin right?
There like 6-8 active cap's and there like 10+ commie,scoalists

no there arnt. there are a handfull of revolutionary left here. I will not count any moaist or stalinist a part of this since they are extreamly reactioinary. Most of the people here are reactionary. I am not going to name any names but few left wingers are on this site.

mononokifool wrote:

CoolKidX wrote:

U got to be kiddin right?
There like 6-8 active cap's and there like 10+ commie,scoalists

no there arnt. there are a handfull of revolutionary left here. I will not count any moaist or stalinist a part of this since they are extreamly reactioinary. Most of the people here are reactionary. I am not going to name any names but few left wingers are on this site.

U mean like fake-comies?

of course.

Just becous I ain't revolutionary makes me Reactionary? What sort of intellectual bankruptcy is that? o.O

Cyprian Uljanow wrote:

Just becous I ain't revolutionary makes me Reactionary? What sort of intellectual bankruptcy is that? o.O

a communist one.

Your the last person on this time that has the right to actually talk about intellectual Bankruptcy - you wore proven wrong more times than I can count, but you insist on spewing moronic claims over and over - We thank this gentleman for god stand up thou.

Cyprian Uljanow wrote:

Your the last person on this time that has the right to actually talk about intellectual Bankruptcy - you wore proven wrong more times than I can count, but you insist on spewing moronic claims over and over - We thank this gentleman for god stand up thou.

I wasnt talking about reformist communist, they are still considered the revolutionary left. I said i wasnt going to name names so dont assume i mean you. reformist would be more idealistic

cyprian i would love it if you helped :]

Reactionary... reactionary... would you mind explaining your understanding and usage of the word "reactionary"?

Cyprian Uljanow wrote:

Your the last person on this time that has the right to actually talk about intellectual Bankruptcy - you wore proven wrong more times than I can count, but you insist on spewing moronic claims over and over - We thank this gentleman for god stand up thou.

lol ok I'm retarded you win.

well, counter revolutionary/revisionist

beatnikzach wrote:

well, counter revolutionary/revisionist

Counter revolutionary, good. For some reason I think no one here qualifies as such except the cappies.

i think you overestimate the people, there are few learned people here and most try to portray themselves learned for whatever reason. Maybe to try and seem cool i dont know. I have no probleme with them but it creates a lack of important discussions. And even if there were few learned people here this is not the right atmosphere for those who are interested to learn more. The disscusions are not stimulating enough to actually help develop anyones knowledge of class antagionism. Deciding whether jesus should be a hero or not does nothing to help raise awareness. And most of the people here are capitalist, and with that said they are reactionary. I think there needs to be a place where people can broden there class awareness and revleft is so large it is not personal enough.

I'm not defending WR. As I see WR it has the objective to be a place where the capitalist point of view can be contrasted with the socialist one. It has failed to a great extent, I acknowledge it. But it's also greatly due to the average user we have here.

As for reactionaries, I meant within the left ranks.

Now, from my personal point of view, what we leftists should do now, more than creating circles of marxist study is to group ourselves and organize as a united left, including even antagonic interpretations of left.
We may hav e very different understandings on how socialism has to be applied and what's the best way towards it, but there's a fact we all share: we want to change this system for good. As long as we're devided as we are right now, we won't achieve nothing. I think we have first to smash our common enemy and then solve our differences.

Why do I say this? Because of the ridiculous antagonisms between Stalinists and Trotskiyists, because of terms as "left and right communists". We're killing each other before we can even achieve something against our enemy.

I define myself as an eclectic communist, that is, I consider something can be learnt from every socialist current and that a globally accepted understanding of has to be achieved. A general concept of it.

We will always have irreconciable differences but in essence we want the same kind of world.

It may seem ridiculous to some or many of you, but I want Trotskiyists and Stalinists fighting together as it should be against capitalism and then after stablishing an all-socialist govervnment differences to be debated. That's what I want. If we don't achieve something like that, I think our movements are doomed at best.

For one, Stalinist and Trots will never be involved in the same revolution. there differences are too vast. There has to be division because through this the best possible answer will form. If everyone is for the same way then if that way fails you are shit out of luck. I commend you for being so broad minded and excepting of all but tell me, how will you get reformist and revolutionaries to work together? Someones opinion will come out on top thus meaning unity is out of the question. Oh and yes i would consider stalinist and moaist reactionary. Also i am a member of revleft but it is not personal enough for me. Way too many people however i do enjoy there radio station It would be one thing if the capies here came to learn about communism and not to ignorantly bash it. None of them that have came here have learned anything, they came with predutious and they have kept them leaving no room for discussion. Conversations go like this, Communist: "Man look how i just gave you proof about how this will work" Capitalist: "Nope nope nope nope all you do is kill people and impose your will on them, I know so becuase i read it in a book written by Bill O'reily"

Hoxhaist wrote:

And Zealot, not only do communists differ on there view of how socialism will be like, they disagree on how it is to be established, which means communists must argue before socialism is established.

I know there are many vast differences in all aspects. I think the main difference is between reformists and revolutionaries. They simply oppose in methods completely. Basically I'm adressing unit among the revolutionary. Reformists will be happy with one or two mildly socialist policies applied to a capitalist constitution and get orgasms out of the idea that communism will arrive when their greatgrandchildren's grandchildren are 70 years old. We revolutionaries want to change the system abruptly. There's no way we can work together.

However, focusing on the revolutionary left there's always space for civilised and objective argumentation to eliminate as many differences as possible and create a common front including as many revolutionary parties as possible.

mononokifool wrote:

For one, Stalinist and Trots will never be involved in the same revolution. there differences are too vast.

I'd like to see their differences contrasted to the furthest extent possible to see what can be got from there.

mononokifool wrote:

There has to be division because through this the best possible answer will form. If everyone is for the same way then if that way fails you are shit out of luck.

I think division is needed in the start but I think we have to confront all the revolutionary left parties so that the best answer can come.

mononokifool wrote:

I commend you for being so broad minded and excepting of all but tell me, how will you get reformist and revolutionaries to work together?

Well that's just opposite poles. For me reformists are either desilutioned socialists that have embraced capitalism or simply fake socialists. But one thing is a reformist compared to a revolutionary and another is a Stalinist compared to a Trotskiyist, two kinds of revolutionary left. A Stalinist can confront a Trotskiyist and viceversa because their goals are far more similar between each other than between a reformist and a revolutonaire.

mononokifool wrote:

Someones opinion will come out on top thus meaning unity is out of the question.

I think that after confronting parties unity could emerge, and I believe it to be of prime importance.

mononokifool wrote:

Oh and yes i would consider stalinist and moaist reactionary.

Reactionary defining "reactionary" as...?

mononokifool wrote:

It would be one thing if the capies here came to learn about communism and not to ignorantly bash it. None of them that have came here have learned anything, they came with predutious and they have kept them leaving no room for discussion. Conversations go like this, Communist: "Man look how i just gave you proof about how this will work" Capitalist: "Nope nope nope nope all you do is kill people and impose your will on them, I know so becuase i read it in a book written by Bill O'reily"

I understand your point and to a great extent you're right. However I think some capitalists have actually learnt more about communism when explained about it. Some capitalists simply believe communism won't work because it doesn't serve their idea of functionality a position that is competely correct from an objective point of view. Some others dislike communism because they think communism consists in brainwashing people and killing those that can't be brainwashed so that everyone can use a uniform and move exactly like the rest of people like if they were some piece of machinery. These are ignorant people that can be taught what communism really is.

There's one example here whose name I won't publicize because he's been asking a lot of questions about communism through PM and he seemed pretty eager to at least understand communism. No ignorant bashing or Billo rethoric, simple doubts and observations.

I have to acknowledge that one of the problems of this site is maturity. We've got a lot of 13-15 year old kids some of which are pretty smart and will probably evolve into better human beings some day and some that are pretty annoying capitalist creatures. But it's ok that they come. I mean, when I was 13 I was a Zionist fascist who talked about killing all Palestinians and that would go next to bums at the street and tell them "Work, you slacker! Otherwise starve!". By confronting socialists, by reading, by researching and simply growing mature I realised which was the proper political and economical stance I had to assume, it took a year for me to become socialist and then since that moment until now I'm still learning and teaching about communism.

I think we've got to be patient to some "undeveloped" comrades and assume a teachng position.

And what to do with Calinian Tape recorders? Well you archive them as evidence of the way many capitalists argue: by disregarding facts, disregarding arguements, repeating the same thing over and over, employing phallacies, etc. Many capitalists act that way so having examples of such discussions do have didactic value for developing comrades and in general serve as a way to show how capitalists can hardly confront communists through valid argumentation.

Else, I have a strong conviction that capitalist conviction just as racism and greed are product of human immaturity and a complex of inferiority as well as lack of security. Keeping record on which kind of people give acertain type of arguement helps to prove or disprove such postures. So far if you analyse it, in this site there are very few capitalists that could actually be called mature. So you get a couple of little boys repeating Churchill's catchy phrases or something the heard on Bill O' Reilly's show (where truth is proportional to volume of speech) and show how the system acts on these creatures who think of themselves as greatly politicised individuals. I passed through that stage and I know many can change and get educated.

I personally had a very negative idea of anarchists not long ago. I considered them my enemies. Then I got in contact with a greek Anarchist friend and with people like inkus and anarchist.dagger who showed me what anarchists are really like.

So well, I simply am for trying as many possibilities and confronting as many parties as possible to get the best solution possible. And I'm convinced we socialists have to get as much unity as we can to fight the common enemy. I'd actually prefer a civil war between socialist brothers after the capitalists are smashed than the capitalists smashing us prior to doing anything.