Yet_Another_Boring_Marxis

Anyway, don't worry about responding late. Being a notorious procrastinator, I sympathise. One of these days I'm going to be ice-picked for not responding to PMs for over a month.

Good grief, these people can't be real, can they? I half keep expecting them to "come out" as a comedian troupe playing a Trotskyist parody of ultraleft politics. I mean, the communist movement has always had the odd flake or two, but the SEP must be the flakes in chief, now that generalissimo Healy is dead and chairman Avakian has stopped being funny.

What always gets me is how these semi-liberals consider themselves to be some sort of no-nonsense "proletarian" tough guys. "Proletarian" in quotes, because the SEP probably can't conceive of the proletariat as anything but a bunch of white, American, male, able-bodied, heterosexual steelworkers with flatcaps and muscles the size of an average cow, all as bigoted as the Northite sect.

They're a disgrace to socialism - and they're a disgrace to Bolshevism-Leninism (but it's only natural that I said that, I'm probably a GPU agent that killed Trotsky.)

I've read some of the things, and I just can't agree. Especially since I am against SioC, I disagree that the USSR was socialist - or even a workers state, and I am against Mao's "peasants as the revolutionary class" and view the PRC as neither a workers state or socialism.

Thanks though!

Names of authors, not titles. Uh. Apparently laughing makes you careless.

Comrade, the SEP do not have dead minorities in their basement. No minority would be suicidal enough to approach them.

I'm sorry for the inane comment, but I've been laughing at that comment for ten minutes now. I don't think it's even sectarianism; I suppose I should be closer to the SEP than to Emelems, though the thought of being close to SEP makes me feel dirty, but the sort of nonsense they put out is just... it's jarringly idiotic.

There is, I think, a good critique to be made of actual identity politics (particularly the focus on identity, "pride" etc. instead of material oppression), but it seems that most times someone mentions "identity politics", they're saying how they're too much of a macho chiseled proletarian union militant to engage in criticism of (ostensibly) non-class oppression. Hell, give these people articles by Lenin, Bonch-Bruevich, Zetkin and others, remove the titles, and they'd condemn them as "identity politics" too.

I've looked into Mao, and I have found al ot of him disagreeable as well. Though, if you have some articles you think can convince me, I'd welcome them!

Hey dude you might not of gotten the full gist of Trotskyism by other sources you may of looked at, if you wanted to give the theories a second chance than you should check out "The Transitional Programme." It's on marxists.org and you seem to agree with some of it from some of my posts you've liked. Anyways they wrote it when they started the 4th international as a general guideline of what the communist parties program and activities in the imperialist countries should be focused on.

Howdy! User slum says that you'd be a good person to ask about maoism. I made this thread, if you want to take a look at it?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/maoism-t18....html?t=180475

No not really

Makes sense. They claim the have a jewel in their hands, point out it's just a stone, and them show them the actual jewel