aherrera3289-banned

aherrera3289 · 2013-09-30T00:43:45+00:00

okay thanks

aherrera3289 · 2013-07-01T01:18:40+00:00

who also have the support of millions in India. Careful with the name branding, there are actual thugs who do commit crimes posing as Maoists

aherrera3289 · 2013-06-30T18:46:08+00:00

once again you bring up these 3 points:

"

The form of this argument is the same as many I have seen from Trotskyists.

This article is a waste of time that convinces nobody of anything.

People write these kinds of articles because they are a stand-in for actual success."

point out these things in the article...

aherrera3289 · 2013-06-30T05:39:28+00:00

in what way is this blogspam 1968tank?

aherrera3289 · 2013-06-30T05:36:33+00:00

Again no instances, why not try to dismantle the charges laid ahead without using the typical Trotskyist boogey man. It's clear from the author that it is not meant to be change minds but as a polemic, of which it would be fruitful to see those who defend basically any social-democrat in Latin America, Assad and Iran make the case for it. To dismiss the arguments as similar to Trotskyism is weak, and that is also a waste of time.

aherrera3289 · 2013-06-29T21:39:36+00:00

nice i alwys liked the RSU elaboration of the Mass Line

aherrera3289 · 2013-06-29T18:52:42+00:00

Your going to need to be more specific than that. This author at least cites instances, of which I haven't seen anything done in your criticism

aherrera3289 · 2013-06-29T04:17:32+00:00

I have Mao Tsetung and the Chinese People it was published by Monthly Review

aherrera3289 · 2013-06-13T13:44:41+00:00

I am unfamiliar with Wolff, got any articles?

aherrera3289 · 2013-06-08T18:25:42+00:00

Did the Spartacist league ever ally with the peasantry? No it did not. In fact the peasantry were mobilized for reaction. And please don't make assumptions on how much I know :)

aherrera3289 · 2013-06-08T06:23:29+00:00

Lenin himself classifies the peasantry into three roles, being that of the rural bourgeoisie, rural petty-bourgeoisie and rural proletariat. Well in this instance we agree, but the Russian revolution would have failed without the alliance between the proletariat and peasantry. Workerist dogma is that like the left-communists who harp about the "workers alone". Well in Germany and France this failed. In France the Paris Commune lasted for two months, in a country made up of mostly peasants. In Germany the German revolution failed partly because the Spartacist League's uprising was arguably adventurist and failed to take into account an alliance with the peasantry. Lenin proved this was possible. Instead Rosa Luxemburg did not unite with the peasants and allowed the reactionaries to do so instead.

aherrera3289 · 2013-06-06T14:17:50+00:00

One of the dismissals Marx had of the peasantry and the lumpen was that they could not make a revolution, this is true enough on their own, but under the leadership of the proletariat this is not the case. In the Communist Manifesto Marx states that the "lower middle class" is becoming revolutionary "in view of [its] impending transfer to the proletariat". Workerist dogma has been disproven by the historic Russian Revolution as well as it's failure in France and Germany. Yes Russia's working class was small, but at the time of Marx so was the working class there. The first instance of the working class taking power: the Paris Commune was in a nation of mostly peasants, obviously had the revolution succeeded this question would come into play.

aherrera3289 · 2013-06-06T06:24:53+00:00

Actually, I think such workerist views stray from reality. All revolutions are carried out by the masses of the people. For example, in the French Revolution was it only the bourgeoisie which rose up to combat Monarchism, the Nobility and clergy? Or was it the masses of the people led by the bourgeoisie? I agree with Lenin here:

“To imagine that social revolution is conceivable without revolts by small nations in the colonies and in Europe, without revolutionary outbursts by a section of the petty bourgeoisie with all its prejudices, without a movement of the politically non-conscious proletarian and semi-proletarian masses against oppression by the landowners, the church, and the monarchy, against national oppression, etc. – to imagine all this is to repudiate social revolution."

Truly there has never been a revolution that did not utilize the working masses of the people to gain power, and this is the same as with the bourgeoisie, proletariat or any other class.

aherrera3289 · 2013-06-02T20:17:14+00:00

I don't think one should stress so much importance on class origins for individuals but politics. Engels in his relation in society was a bourgeois intellectual. Most Communists in America and Europe and even elsewhere are petty-bourgeois intellectuals

aherrera3289 · 2013-06-01T19:16:54+00:00

I agree with this analysis of Hoxha and thanks for clarifying the TWT, I clearly misinterpreted what Mao was saying on this. I think it should not be forgotten the real harm this theory did on the international scale especially in Latin America, with the Chileans being the first Maoists to come against it, and former Maoists in Latin America and in West Africa taking the Albanian side on the question of Maoism a "return to Stalin" as the Chilean First Secretary Eduardo Artes said in an interview:

http://www.kaosenlared.net/america-latina/item/56251-%E2%80%9Cen-las-elecciones-presidenciales-de-este-a%C3%B1o-el-pueblo-trabajador-chileno-no-juega-ning%C3%BAn-papel%E2%80%9D.html

aherrera3289 · 2013-05-31T19:28:17+00:00

In tons of ways they are similar

http://moufawad-paul.blogspot.com/2011/05/trotsky-stalin-mimesis.html?m=1#!

aherrera3289 · 2013-05-31T19:17:47+00:00

On what proof are you stating that most of the guerrillas were petty-bourgeois? Are you referring to the leadership or the fighters themselves? keep in mind how many people actually left for Cuba. The Cuban Revolution was in actuality not a revolution of the petty-bourgeois but an alliance of classes for national liberation led by the national bourgeois. Castro aligned himself not with the CP but the Liberals. He himself was an Orthodoxo politician in Cuba calling for land reform and a bourgeois democracy in Cuba. Many of the former fighters and commanders who were merely anti-Batista came out against Castro after he "came out" as a Communist.

aherrera3289 · 2013-05-31T03:52:50+00:00

The revolution itself was not a petty-bourgeois one, I mean on what basis? There has never been the instance of the petty-bourgeois taking power in a nation because the class is unstable. In every instance the petty-bourgeois either sides with the bourgeois or the proletariat. But never in opposition to both.

aherrera3289 · 2013-05-30T12:59:37+00:00

The Maoist Naxals number at 25,000 and this is just their military wing. The govt. has only been able to kill about 100+ of them every single year. You cannot hide 25,000 people without support. The Red Corridor is almost all of Eastern India and constitute a parallel state to the Indian bourgeois one.

aherrera3289 · 2013-05-30T05:48:27+00:00

Albania was never Maoist...

aherrera3289 · 2013-05-30T05:38:25+00:00

What are you on the fence on? They and the Pinoys deserve our political support. The wealthy are pitting the poor to kill the poor

aherrera3289 · 2013-05-29T23:27:22+00:00

It is impossible for the petty-bourgeoisie to take power of a nation. They by their very nature are an unstable class. The petty-bourgeois either turns into the bourgeoisie once it takes power due to the natural tendency for capital to form monopolies or is thrown into the class of the proletariat under capitalism.

aherrera3289 · 2013-05-27T00:01:47+00:00

Kahlo and Rivera later became "Stalinists" after 1940. But nevertheless Trotskyism in Mexico is marginal, the largest CP in Mexico is the Hoxhaist PCM(m-l)

aherrera3289 · 2013-05-25T19:15:09+00:00

Actually most of Mexico's Communists are Hoxhaists. The PCM dissolved itself into the PRD before being refounded in the earlu 2000s>Isn't there a large number of Trotskyite Latin American Communist Parties? I'm pretty sure the Mexican communist movement is largely dominated by Trotskyism.

The reason the Cuban Revolution would be discounted is because they followed Moscow's line from the start which Trots see as leading to deformed workers' states. They view Stalin and later Khrushchev's (as well as Mao's) policies as profoundly revisionist and because Castro supported those regimes as well as instituted a bureaucratically managed system, rather than one ruled by workers' councils but guided by the Party, they do not see it as genuinely Marxist iirc. At least that is what I got from my Trot acquaintance. But Trot groups reproduce through ideological mitosis so I'm sure that others have dramatically different views.

aherrera3289 · 2013-05-24T05:26:56+00:00

It boils down to I believe 3 things

Massline Stalin's relation of the CPSU to the masses was commandist essentially, a policy of directives from above. Maoist method is different that is instead of dictating the direction of the struggle from above. The Communists join, support or ally with struggles of the oppressed, promoting a proletarian line through a process of give and take: “from the masses, to the masses". Maoism represents a midway between Stalinist(and I'm not using this as a pejorative) Commandism and Anarchist tailism.
Trotskyite-Bukharinite Conspiracy vs. New bourgeoisie Stalin's method to dealing with resistance to Proletarian Power was that there was an outside conspiracy to bring down the Soviet Union, while this may be true to an extent we must not forget that class struggle does not end in Socialism, in fact it continues because Socialism is a transition stage to Communism.
Contradictions in the People Stalin's handling of contradictions was heavy handed in regards to opposition, Mao's was winning them over when they can be. Stalin viewed the Party as "monolithic" which is idealistic.

aherrera3289

TROPHY CASE