Lark [establishing a high tone]: Now I know your a fithy Troskyist...
: Which you have fundamentally Misunderstood and Insist upon misunderstanding, that statement is about SELF-ADVOCACY and DIRECT ACTION, I dont see how you can have a revolution without either, since you cant have 'the emancipation of the working class can be the work of the workingclass alone' without it but then I'm no Vanguardist.
You say, fuck all parties (collective action), the revolution is made by the individual. How is that attitude different from the view the revolution is made by a minority?---something you inaccurately attribute to Trotsky and myself.
Stoller: When I see comments such as marriage is about procreation and with that in mind homosexuals would never be deserving of the same benefits as heterosexuals, then, yes, I would say that you're pretty far to the right.
: That's typically arrogant, your trying to rewrite the political spectrum to suit yourself...
No sir, on the issue of gay rights, it is an ESTABLISHED FACT that questioning gay benefits---in any way---is definitely to the right. Pick up a Nation or a Mother Jones for corroboration.
Face it, Lark: you are a crass homophobe which coupled with your enthusiasm for eugenics is PRETTY SCARY.
Stoller: You allude, of course, to Crick's misrepresentation of a Trotsky quote in Deutscher's biography of Stalin. I disproved that erroneous claim here.
: Make reference to that all you want the fact is that you are a vanguardist you own loyalty to the vanguard before yourself and your 'class'.
That's dodging the point about the quote, but I'm more than willing to address your claim that I am a vanguardist.
As I said in this post, I believe that no political party can accept members who deny the central tenets of the party. For example, would the Green party want a member representing them who said that the rain forest should be turned into a parking lot? Should a communist party accept members who deny the existence of classes and class struggle? Should intentional communities, such as the 'vanguardist' Twin Oaks, accept members who make homophobic comments on a regular basis?
How can a party represent its aims honestly if it accepts members who consistently misrepresent the party's aims?
For example, if party X believes in violent confrontation with the capitalist class to achieve communist aims, wouldn't it be DISHONEST to have members recruited by members who said otherwise?
Honesty and continuity are necessary, in my opinion, to represent the party. Unity of ideological principles is equally necessary, in my opinion, for a party to accomplish anything. I can respect your disagreement with this perspective but, tell me, why would I want to join a party that has members who fundamentally disagree with my politics? Wouldn't such a party of ideological disunity be little more than a debating club?
Stoller: You have denied class differences here.
: If you continue to dispute my position, which is that there is a class war being waged against working people, the working poor and the idle poor and that the opposition is going to have be a social group commited to a classless society drawn from a wide range of social classes, then explain, without reference to Marx, the on mass co-opting of the working class into capitalism.
Your position on classes has SUDDENLY CHANGED. If you represented a political party, how would I know what the hell you REALLY think?
: 'immature ravings' that is a SLANDER...
Is it? Consider this post where, responding to someone who sent me a flattering post, you accuse him of being a 'strollerite clone.' Consider this post where you conclude in no discernible context: 'can't we all be friends? Well not Stroller but everybody else...' Consider flaming jibes such as 'brutalistic murder ballads.' Consider outright taunts devoid of purpose, consider sleazy allusions to Hitler... Etc., etc.
: By the way I'm not big on interpreting Marx, I'm not one of these Political Jesuits like you I'm a freethinker...
You are such a free thinker that your political views are as tensible as wet bubble gum. Your posts are a wild mosaic of libertarian / anarchist clichès, an amorphous mass of centrist liberal vacillation made consistent only by a steady undercurrent of anti-gay prejudice.
: No it's not stressful at all but your singular cowardice...
Haven't you realized yet that I never discuss you, I only discuss your politics?