Dirty attack on Comrade Harpal Brar at this bastard website.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/does-anybody-take-t173548/index.html
That's another good example of "revolutionary left" ideology.
http://www.revleft.com/vb/liberal-virus-among-t173528/index.html
That's how liberals behave when their own ideological stance is under attack.

I don't see a problem here.

Can you explain why the 2nd thread is closed. And what they said about CPGB-ML is much more true for them. At least CPGB-ML is a much bigger faction than those trots who are posting on this thread.

How am I supposed to explain what they did? I'm not them nor do I care if someone bad mouths the CPGB-ML.

Well, that's your point of view. I just want to show the real nature of "liberals" to others.

RevI wrote:http://www.revleft.com/vb/does-anybody-take-t173548/index.html
That's another good example of "revolutionary left" ideology.

The OP in that thread was undoubtedly correct in arguing that the contemporary left's obsession with identity politics is counterproductive. As a left-wing nationalist, some may accuse me of doing likewise, but I've always understood that the conditions conducive to the social revolution are distinct from those which contribute to national revolution—rarely do they ever coincide. The LGBT rights, feminist, and anti-racist movements are inherently class collaborationist and therefore irrelevant to the class struggle, which is why grafting those causes onto socialism and communism is nonsensical and frequently has a deleterious effect. To be clear, I'm not contending that those causes are illegitimate, only that they should be pursued independently of radical activism. Such a position is, however, heretical to RevLeft's cosmopolitan extremists.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/liberal-virus-among-t173528/index.html
That's how liberals behave when their own ideological stance is under attack.

To be fair, Harpal Brar is among the most dogmatic and sectarian of the neo-Stalinists. Moreover, his organization—the CPGB-ML—has a rather bizarre tendency to fanatically defend every country which is nominally "socialist" today, including the People's Republic of China—the world's leading authoritarian capitalist state. Forgive me, but it's hard to take an organization which frequently invites ambassadors from such countries to their events very seriously.

And, just from a tactical perspective, do they honestly believe that they are going to attract many British citizens to their party while carrying banners of Joseph Stalin in their protests and hanging portraits of Kim Il-sung in their offices? Regardless of what one may think of those men, their legacies are irredeemably tarnished at this point and, consequently, it's incredibly harmful to associate their views with your own in today's political climate. Contemporary advocates of centralized economic planning should simply attempt to persuade people of its legitimacy with reason, logic, and, if need be, empirical studies from its historic implementation; but certainly not refer to their cause as representing the 'continuation of the Soviet legacy,' or what have you.

Celtiberian wrote:To be fair, Harpal Brar is among the most dogmatic and sectarian of the neo-Stalinists. Moreover, his organization—the CPGB-ML—has a rather bizarre tendency to fanatically defend every country which is nominally "socialist" today, including the People's Republic of China—the world's leading authoritarian capitalist state. Forgive me, but it's hard to take an organization which frequently invites ambassadors from such countries to their events very seriously.

And, just from a tactical perspective, do they honestly believe that they are going to attract many British citizens to their party while carrying banners of Joseph Stalin in their protests and hanging portraits of Kim Il-sung in their offices? Regardless of what one may think of those men, their legacies are irredeemably tarnished at this point and, consequently, it's incredibly harmful to associate their views with your own in today's political climate. Contemporary advocates of centralized economic planning should simply attempt to persuade people of its legitimacy with reason, logic, and, if need be, empirical studies from its historic implementation; but certainly not refer to their cause as representing the 'continuation of the Soviet legacy,' or what have you.

Sorry to say, waving a red flag with picture of Stalin doesn't mean "Stalin Worshiping" or "remembering the soviet legacy" kind of thoughts. A huge number of M-Ls around the world, including the Maoists consider Stalin as one of the greatest figures of Socialism in 20th century. At least I don't care about what an average brainwashed Briton has thoughts about Stalin and North Korea. The way you represented you thoughts seems that we must take some kind of Euro-communism kind of line or some kind of trot/Anarchist or kind of pseudo-left tendencies to spread base among common British workers. That would be the worst treachery to workers of the world in reality.
Denouncing great leaders and past achievement for spreading base among brainwashed morons is simply called "revisionism". Which is the worst enemy of proletariat worldwide during the last century and at present too.

RevI wrote:Sorry to say, waving a red flag with picture of Stalin doesn't mean "Stalin Worshiping" or "remembering the soviet legacy" kind of thoughts.

That's not what I claimed. I argued that it's tactically unsound to carry banners of Stalin in the United Kingdom, considering how the Soviet experience is viewed by British working people today—whether or not their assessment of Soviet history is accurate is besides the point. With that said, I've watched a number of the CPGM-ML's meetings online and they most certainly do view themselves as carrying forth the Soviet legacy; frequently referring to their dear "Soviet socialist motherland," and other such nostalgic absurdities. In fact, a significant percentage of their meetings concern mundane details of Soviet historical events, which are obviously irrelevant to the many issues their members are currently facing.

A huge number of M-Ls around the world, including the Maoists consider Stalin as one of the greatest figures of Socialism in 20th century.

If you haven't noticed, Marxism-Leninism isn't exactly a popular tendency among the working class in the developed Western countries today.

Just to clarify, despite espousing views decidedly to the left of Stalinism, my personal opinion of Joseph Stalin is fairly neutral. I'm certainly not the type of person to accuse the Soviet Union of having not been a legitimate socialist state, or what have you. What I've critiqued thus far has only been the manner by which certain contemporary Marxist-Leninists, like Harpal Brar, present their views to the public—which is quite apart from my myriad criticisms of Stalinist doctrine. I contend that unless they dramatically modify the delivery of their message (e.g., their iconography and constant references to controversial historical figures), the CPGB-ML (and similar groups) will fail to amass a sizable following.

At least I don't care about what an average brainwashed Briton has thoughts about Stalin and North Korea.

You should, because these "brainwashed" workers are the very people we socialists and communists are supposed to be concerned with organizing right now.

The way you represented you thoughts seems that we must take some kind of Euro-communism kind of line or some kind of trot/Anarchist or kind of pseudo-left tendencies to spread base among common British workers. That would be the worst treachery to workers of the world in reality.

Personally, I consider strategies conducive to organizing the working class to be immensely more important than desperately clinging onto controversial relics from the past. This has nothing whatever to do with adopting a reformist political program; it pertains solely to the delivery of our message to the general public. Call this "treachery" if you will, I call it pragmatism.

Denouncing great leaders and past achievement for spreading base among brainwashed morons is simply called "revisionism". Which is the worst enemy of proletariat worldwide during the last century and at present too.

I said nothing of "denouncing" past achievements, I've merely argued that refraining from cult of personality politics is a reasonable course of action in the 21st century. Revisionism is the act of revising Marxist revolutionary and/or economic theory, which I've not advocated during our exchange.