Independent (if they have so little workers' vote, this merely means they need our support more!), hoping to end up in a coalition with Marxists-Leninists.
Tommy4ever has 190 posts, 2 people have 100+, and 6 more have 75-99 posts. 922/1876 posts by 9 people.
Independent (if they have so little workers' vote, this merely means they need our support more!), hoping to end up in a coalition with Marxists-Leninists.
EDIT: ps John Foseti - I can't get that song you posted out of my head!
It is now two years to the day since I started to write my very first AAR.
I do not intend to continue writing past the summer of 2011.
Independents: 19
Anarchists: 14
Marxist-Leninsts: 11
Militarists: 5
Moderates: 3
I suspect a few people are judging VSVR Lenin too much by USSR Lenin. I hope atleast the anarchist poison has not seeped into the general proletariat.
I suspect a lot of them are judging him because he allied with the Militarists, a faction generally hated by right-thinking socialists, he crushed all criticism of himself in the presses, he fired on innocent civilians and wasted proletarian money on grandiose prestige games with foreign powers.
Give credit where it's due. Destructive Criticism might I remind you.
Those citizens were attacking local law enforcement and it was believed a potential coup was in the works.
Showing off! The peoples of the world do not rise up because of a large statue or grandiose arcitecture! They rise because of their economic conditions and class consciousness. We should be directing our funds at improving the lives of the workers, that would be a true example to the proletarians of the world! No, the statues are designed to impress the bourgeoisie of foreign nations, a pointless task as they will be consigned to the ash heap of history soon enough.How is showing off the grandeur of this Revolution a waste of money? Realistically quite a few of these "grandiose presitge games" can be put to practical use by the People. Further, showing this world the power of Socialism is but greater incentive for the oppressed to rise up in order to join in such prosperity, and the oppressors to repent their ways.
Have you even read the Independent proposals on the press? They are specifically designed to prevent bourgeois influence on the press and establish democratic ownership! How does a free press benefit, well, without it how are we to hold our government to account? How are we to know what is truth and what is fiction? If Lenin had his way the massacres in Brussels would have been covered up, and in place of the vibrant debate which has kept this country on the cutting edge of ideology and allowing new ideas to surface, the press would be reduced to a bland, censored garbage full of articles about how great the glorious Comrade Lenin is. This would rapidly lead to political stagnation. With no other faction able to state its case the Leninists would win every "election" if it could even be called one, Lenin would rule as dictator for life, regardless of whether he was still fit for the job, and appoint his successor. Gone would be the revolutionary energy, the meeting-halls which once teemed with life would ring with silence, and our nation would have taken a step backwards, away from the true revolution and away from Marxism. That is why I oppose Lenin, and propose instead to restore Marxism to its former ideals. Its true ideals.Marxist-Leninism
These Independents are seeking the ego bruised United Front. Comrades, do not be swayed by this golden calf. As I predicted, the UF did nothing but delayed the fight over the press. The Independents will be as ineffectual and historically insignificant if they gain power now. A free press is a tainted press, one which gives the capitalists sway over the opinions of those unready for Communism. We in this Socialist Republic must safeguard those uneducated in the revolution by preventing the spread of the counter-revolutionary rhetoric. It has no place in our society and will lead us to ruin. Restore the free press and wait for the bourgeois rebellion to build. The Independents are but Anarchists in sheeps clothing, and without the leadership of Engels they can not be trusted even as much as the United Front.
As I predicted, the UF did nothing but delayed the fight over the press.
Have you even read the Independent proposals on the press? They are specifically designed to prevent bourgeois influence on the press and establish democratic ownership! How does a free press benefit, well, without it how are we to hold our government to account? How are we to know what is truth and what is fiction? If Lenin had his way the massacres in Brussels would have been covered up, and in place of the vibrant debate which has kept this country on the cutting edge of ideology and allowing new ideas to surface, the press would be reduced to a bland, censored garbage full of articles about how great the glorious Comrade Lenin is. This would rapidly lead to political stagnation. With no other faction able to state its case the Leninists would win every "election" if it could even be called one, Lenin would rule as dictator for life, regardless of whether he was still fit for the job, and appoint his successor. Gone would be the revolutionary energy, the meeting-halls which once teemed with life would ring with silence, and our nation would have taken a step backwards, away from the true revolution and away from Marxism. That is why I oppose Lenin, and propose instead to restore Marxism to its former ideals. Its true ideals.
I make no defense of the terrorists who killed two police officers. I also cannot defend or condone a state which reacts to a minority violence by murdering 600 people and forcing those who did not come for violence to fight or die."Massacre in Brussels"? Two police officers were killed and a building was firebombed, a coup was believed to be in progress. You tell me what the "proper" response is in that case comrade. Innocent civilians died that day, namely the brave officers and soldiers who died such that peace might be restored and violence not be used as a tool of persuasion on the fate of this Revolution. I find it funny that in a civilized country where a system is in place such that the opposition might PEACEFULLY take power it is always certain parties that first resort to violence as a means to acquire their goals.
How are the Anarchists to peacefully take power if they cannot publish their platform or criticize Lenin? Calling for revolution against Lenin was unacceptable at that time, it has not yet evolved into a dictatorship and there is still hope for a democratic solution. But shutting down the entire paper of his major factional rival in the Party? How can you not interpret that as an attempt to hold on to power?"The press would be reduced to a bland, censored garbage" Tell me. Why did Lenin censor the Zeal? Inflammatory messages that have no place in civilized debate, that's why. Lenin has shown no intentions of using censorship to maintain power. I don't agree that Zeal's actions were bad enough to warrant its censorship (Some exceptions must be made for lax judgement), but stop acting as if you have plausibility in claiming that Lenin is trying to run a security state conspiracy.
Debate on the facts, don't bring in fearmongering fantasies that only serve your ends.
I make no defense of the terrorists who killed two police officers. I also cannot defend or condone a state which reacts to a minority violence by murdering 600 people and forcing those who did not come for violence to fight or die.
How are the Anarchists to peacefully take power if they cannot pubish their platform or criticize Lenin? Calling for revolution against Lenin was unacceptable at that time, it has not yet evolved into a dictatorship and there is still hope for a democratic solution. But shutting down the entire paper of his major factional rival in the Party? How can you not interpret that as an attempt to hold on to power?
I might ask you a similar question. Why did Lenin suppress a moderate Marxist newspaper which disagreed with him about a relatively minor geopolitical strategy? Because Lenin cannot tolerate critisicm of himself. It was that act that made me see that Lenin was not just misguided in censoring the press, he actually believes that the only views that can legitimately be expressed are his own.
What they should have done is made themselves aware of the facts before overreacting. Instead, without thinking about whether their assumptions might be wrong, they deployed the army of the republic against their own comrades and brothers in arms. The fact remains that the death of two men is appalling, but it was hardly indicative of having enough forces to capture Brussels, let alone march to Cologne and attempt a coup. It was an overreaction and points to the paranoia of Lenin. He sees conspiracies everywhere, every criticism in the press is not just a comradely disagreement, to him it is treason.You ignore the facts of my argument. As far as the government in Cologne knew, the "greatest hotbed of Anarchists and Radicals" was experiencing an attempted coup. This was no "minority violence". For all intents and purposes the government may have viewed it as but the first event in a civil war. How would you have responded differently? Please tell me what there is to fix before you try to lampoon the government for its actions.
They criticised his platform, they criticised him as a man. That is their right. It is my right to say that Lenin is a donkey. I would not, because I know it is not true, but it is my right nonetheless. And play fair, propaganda funded by foreign bourgeois powers is hardly comparable to comrades in the Party getting carried away with their rhetoric.Once again facts are ignored comrade. The Anarchists did not peacefully push their platform or peacefully mark out the faults of Lenin. They portrayed him in a negative fashion for no other reason than to damage his image. I reassert, their actions were not severe enough to warrant the reaction in my mind but you can hardly argue what they were doing was something that should be encouraged. So if a British government agency somehow funds a newspaper that spouts "Socialism is a lie! Rise up against your oppressors and join Britannia!!" and the government replies with censorship, that's "an attempt to hold on to power"? If the Zeal had done nothing but rationally pushed its message I could see some sense in your argument but as it stands it looks like a poorly made excuse to fabricate some proof that Lenin yearns to be a dictator.
Same situation, different party. I really don't see how it differs. Moderate Marxists post "Scathing attack" (Obviously having no place in rational debate). Government responds with censor, I don't agree the offence is serious enough. Same exact story.
What they should have done is made themselves aware of the facts before overreacting. Instead, without thinking about whether their assumptions might be wrong, they deployed the army of the republic against their own comrades and brothers in arms. The fact remains that the death of two men is appalling, but it was hardly indicative of having enough forces to capture Brussels, let alone march to Cologne and attempt a coup. It was an overreaction and points to the paranoia of Lenin. He sees conspiracies everywhere, every criticism in the press is not just a comradely disagreement, to him it is treason.
They criticised his platform, they criticised him as a man. That is their right. It is my right to say that Lenin is a donkey. I would not, because I know it is not true, but it is my right nonetheless. And play fair, propaganda funded by foreign bourgeois powers is hardly comparable to comrades in the Party getting carried away with their rhetoric.
Are you perhaps not aware of the definition of the word "scathing"? It may have used the odd rhetorical flourish, but I can assure you it was an entirely rational criticism of the government's geopolitical strategy. They did not call for violence. They did not call for Lenin's overthrow. They criticised one policy of Lenin's. In response our budding Kaiser threw a temper tantrum and sent his goons masquerading as guards to shut down one more paper which does not slavishly flatter him at every turn.
Bitter much? What Lenin did may not have been right. The right thing may not always be what is necessary. However, it was necessary. The Zeal was nothing more than a pamphlet to incite revolution, and you cannot argue that it wasn't because it is.