If you use the word, “communism”, it doesn’t make you a communist.
“States (and the people within them) who hold revisionist claims to socialist identity, though they miss
the point entirely, still do have revolutionary potential — they will still take up arms to fight imperialists,
but there would be no way for anarchists to consolidate a firm strategy to prevent betrayal by these states.
Only a unified party could do that…”
That is not a 60′s revolutionary potential. It’s a classic stateful revolutionary potential. A unified party is
never a tool. If you’re going to sabotage, it’s the same even if another empire is attacking your master’s
sovereignty.
Don’t you have to believe in what Lenin wrote/said to be a Leninist?
7:58:15 >>> frenzy was reading about the February and October Revolutions last week. They sounded pretty
interesting, but some people formed a temporary government.
Some Marxists say the state is just a tool.
“Marxist thought relies on the dialectical-scientific method I described above – to the conclusion that the State as
a concept is only as oppressive as the system that it regulates. To that end, then, it is understandable
why today’s communists view a State or any governing, dictating body as a neutral tool that can be put to
any use.”
How could the state be any less oppressive than it is? It seems like necessary alienation. It’s a network of
jobs: soldier, police, etc. How can that be desireable desirable? How could that get us to communism?
(I guess if you can use it, …, but I can’t choose it) You have to be a Roma or Moses, related to tyranny or a wiseguy.
I am not what I’m saying, what I’ve said or what I will say.
