: : No, the shameful thing was when Barry proved that Crick took the quote out of context AND YOU SAID IT DIDN'T MATTER. : What do you mean? The quote isnt important the point I was trying to make with it was, that Trotsky and lenin in the name of some abstract proletariat dismantled sydicates, soviets, co-ops and murdered workers and peasants and the Kronstadt sailors.
So the Bolsheviks should have waited for the ice to melt? Puh!
: : A syndicalist putsch? Can you say OXYMORON?
: Must we engage in wordplay? I mean by your own admittance there are shake and bake and fun things to do like that.
"Syndicalist putsch" IS wordplay. "Shake-n-bake" is a figure of speech.
: : Individuals make revolutions? Naaah. Revolutions (and social relations) are independent of individual wills.
: No I dont think so, your signing your ability to do anything away, what prevented the WTO talks? Individuals who didnt subscribe to the determinist notion that the whole affair couldnt be effected by them.
The WTO is still around isn't it? Stop playing games.
: Laugh if you will, laughter is good. In Britain there are a lot of council tennant housing workers who believe that if they share certain trates with the rich, like mobile phones, satellite dishes etc., the same commodities, then their is no class division.
That's what they BELIEVE; that doesn't make it so. You also blur the distinction between "rich" and "capitalist".
: As to the correlation of interests they both dont want to be taxed.
The big bourgeoisie isn't worried about taxes.
: : You think isolated acts of terror against the bourgeoisie will scare them away for good? Dream on.
: :And the anarchist revolution in Spain prevented an efficient solution to the problem of a centralized revolutionary government; this seriously harmed the republican front.
: It wasnt the anarchists fault they where betrayed by the communists and the poum wasnt trotskyist if your going to pull that one it was an advocate of workers control and their leader broke with Trotsky because he thought the guy was to authoritarian, so they where united in death with the anarchists.
Let me clarify: the anarchist leaders of the CNT and FAI betrayed the anarchist workers' revolution when, at the crucial hour, they became bourgeois ministers in the popular front government; this played right into Stalin's hands. The POUM wasn't Trotskyist per se, but they did advocate PERMANENT REVOLUTION.
: : You will have to show me where Trotsky advocated a Blanquist coup.
: Him and Lenin lead one in Russia in October 1916.
No, the Bolsheviks had support from the majority of the working class.
: : : Guess there are jsut some sorts of people who will set and die of thirst waiting on a taxi to take them to an oasis that is within walking distance.
: : The oasis is still much farther away than walking distance; this makes you a utopian.
: Call me names if you want, I'll drink you can eat dust.
Drinking from the fountain of opportunism?
: : Who's throwing their hands up here? I'm a vanguardist; that hardly makes me an 'economist'.
: Vanguardism is throwing your hands up trusting to leaders to sort things out, where is your leader when you the boss gives you shit? They're about as usful as the police sitting in the station while your mugged.
One can advocate vanguardism AND direct action in the work place.
: I was also going against your economic determinism.
I qualified that determinism, remember?
: : On a final note, Gramsci identified 'economism' with syndicalism AND his modern 'prince' was none other than the revolutionary party. How 'bout them apples?
: What? What's that mean? Gramsci was a council communist, which is much the same as syndicalism, the whole prince thing was meant to be a contrast with Machavelli's 'the prince'.
Gramsci didn't make a fetish out of councils or general strikes - he understood the importance of a broad based proletarian party.
None.
