RevLeft discovers the Socialist Phalanx

Admin wrote:

xx1994xx wrote:Neo-Fascists/Thrid Positionists are politically the biggest weirdos throughout the whole spectrum. The site does a good job at trying to conceal the brown shirt under their red sweater better than most though. For a second, I thought it was actually just a left-wing nationalist site that was unfortunate enough to have a small group of Strasserists, but they really are all just reactionaries who don't understand the role of the nation in capitalist society.

What a profoundly moronic statement. Had we no understanding of the function of various expressions of nationalism in capitalist societies, we would not endeavor to embrace left-wing nationalism — which explicitly rejects capitalism, imperialism, and all other manner of reactionary principles. For once, I would love for one of you assholes to actually substantiate your claims with evidence, rather than continue to post the same old (discredited) talking-points.

Rafiq wrote:I am not an admin and I cannot do anything about the Restriction of the users of the Phalanx.

But I will tell you, that I believe you are (Besides Strasserists, I think) allowed to do whatever you may please in the Opposing Idealogies forum.

So I welcome you to such, where we can have a civilized debate. It should be interesting...

I have no objection to debating any of you in the OV section of your forum. The only problem is that your cyber comrades have so libeled this forum that I will likely be banned the moment one of your overzealous moderators learns that I have anything to do with the Socialist Phalanx. If I can be assured that such will not transpire, I will be more than happy to oblige your request.

The fact that this forum explicitly repudiates capitalism, fascism, racism, chauvinism, imperialism, class collaboration, and every other reactionary concept you care to think of (example I, example II, example III, example IV) should be reason enough to transcend said libel and at least allow my participation in OV. But I won't hold my breath.

Therefore, if the zealots at RevLeft cannot be reasonable, I recommend that you and your friends come and debate us here, in our OV section.

Comrade, you are wasting your time with these cretins, what they think is irrelevant, because they are simply reactionaries who pretend to be socialists, the fact that they are so preoccupied with trivial social issues such as 'sexual liberation', homosexuality, and the plight of ethnic minorities to the near exclusion of anything having to do with the interests of actual proletarians demonstrates that these people have more in common with left-wing liberals than real socialists like ourselves.

As Celtiberian pointed out, they don't dare point out that the capitalist mode of production causes immigration, or how immigration serves to weaken the proletariat by inflating the labor market, thereby increasing unemployment, which depresses wages and turns labor against itself (mostly by forcing workers to compete for limited jobs, but also through the creation of a split labor market betwixt white and non-white workers).

This fact demonstrates that their first concern is not about the workers as much as it is about advancing multiculturalism and cosmopolitanism at all costs.

Now that Coach Trotsky has been banned from RevLeft, I will not bother registering over there. It's obvious that there is no genuine interest in coming to an understanding about what the Socialist Phalanx actually represents amongst the majority of the membership there.

Enjoy libeling us. You're scoring major points with teenage cyber-revolutionaries throughout the Global North. (Please be sure to inform us when the international working class begins to actually take you creatures seriously.)

In any case, we'll continue to refute your erroneous claims over here. Those of you RevLeft members who are actually interested in engaging us in civil debate are more than welcome to do so in our Opposing Views section.

Well, just before I was able to explain the political process of development that has occurred the course of this year with/between most of the longtime members of Socialist Phalanx, RevLeft showed itself to be too cowardly to handle any further political debate/discussion and banned me. I hope it feels good to these faux-Leftists right now, because that will be a temporary and fast-fleeting luxury.

No, I'm not going to bother trying to rejoin their forum. I said what I had to say over there in the posts I made there, and I meant every bit of it. Now, they can pretend that they were all born Red diaper babies, but it ain't true, and most of them never overcame a bourgeois liberal/petty bourgeois reformist outlook. I just hope they aren't caught too much by surprise when those at the bottom of society figure out that these faux-Leftists are misleading them and actually serving to maintain and extend exploitative/oppressive society. Of they're the last to know that the working people and oppressed peoples and youth are on to them and quite angry about it, there may be nothing we at Socialist Phalanx can do to save them from the legacy of denial, abandonment and betrayals while fronting as "progressives" that they sowed themselves, nor its likely consequences. The current Left has been holding back working people and the oppressed around the world for decades...that must end NOW.

Thankfully, the current sellout system-defending radical-posturing liberal Left is weak, filled with conflict-adverse middle class chickenshit trendies that have no real influence outside their tiny wannabe-elitist fringe trendy cosmopolitan milieus, with no significant roots among the worse off more precarious working people of any nationality, nor the ranks of the unemployed, nor among youth at the bottom of society who face a bleak hellish future should the capitalist system be allowed to continue on much longer. These days, you can count on majority of the current faux-Left to hide on the sidelines (or in their ivory tower safe middle class enclaves) and/or sing in chorus with the bourgeois media and politicians against those from the bottom who rebel in the streets. Thankfully, the people who will really change the world are not going to be listening to them.

Now, those of you who actually do grasp or sense that the current Left is on the wrong course, please feel free to discuss this with us here, and to debate us where you feel disagreement. You've got serious questions? Bring it. You've got better ideas? Bring it.

You really want to change the world? Then you've come to the right place to begin.

Rafiq wrote:Perhaps I am mistaken on your conceptions of nationalism, then.

Perhaps to the slightest degree...

However, what it does serve, is still an international divide for the proletariat, different 'nations' competing for different resources, Land mass, sounds like a call to war from my perspective.

This is entirely dependent upon what you consider to be acceptable "division." When your logic is taken to its extreme, identity itself serves to alienate individuals from each other. As was already pointed out to you, group identity emerges regardless of what circumstances exist in society: it is a natural human phenomenon without which we would have failed to survive for even this long as a species. Without a national framework, groups would simply dissolve into finer units of varying sizes, and individual behavior would serve against the interests of other individuals in much the same manner that we witness under capitalism, which would, of course, serve to undermine the foundation of the social formation of which such clusters are a part. This is evidenced by both the cosmopolitan practices in the Global North and the effects of capitalism's own self-interest doctrine.

That being the case, we are presented with three theoretical approaches: 1) forced integration and the destruction of diversity; 2) the maintenance of heterogeneous and therefore fragmented societies; 3) acceptance of diversity as a natural aspect of the human condition and upholding such diversity by allowing distinct peoples their political autonomy while fostering the development of an international environment structured so as to reward cooperation and not imperialism. Needless to say, we view the first two methods to be entirely incompatible with the aim of introducing any lasting and meaningful social (to speak nothing of post-capitalist) reconstruction.

Everyone on Earth needs all of the Earth, it's resources, land, should be the property of all Proletarians.

Our espoused nationalism does not deny such a reality. Personally, I support an international system organized in much the same way as that outlined by Michael Albert:

"Why not replace the IMF, the World Bank, and the WTO, with an International Asset Agency, a Global Investment Assistance Agency, and a World Trade Agency? These three new institutions would work to attain equity, solidarity, diversity, self-management, and ecological balance in international financial, trade, and cultural exchange. They would seek to direct the benefits of trade and investment disproportionally to weaker and poorer parties, not to richer and more powerful ones. They would prioritize national aims, cultural identity, and equitable development above commercialism. They would protect domestic laws, rules, and regulations designed to promote worker, consumer, environmental, health, safety, human rights, animal protection, or other non-profit centered interests by rewarding those who attain such aims most successfully. They would advance democracy by enlarging the choices available to democratically controlled governments and subordinating the desires of multinationals and large economies to the survival, growth, and diversification of smaller units.

Similarly these new institutions would not promote global trade at the expense of local economic development nor would they force Third World countries to open their markets to rich multinationals and to abandon efforts to protect infant domestic industries. Instead of downgrading international health, environmental, and other standards through a process called "downward harmonization," they would work to upgrade standards via "upward equalization."

The new institutions would not limit government ability to use purchasing dollars for human rights, environmental, worker rights, and other non-commercial purposes, but would advise and facilitate doing just that. They would advocate countries treating products differently if they were made with brutalized child labor, with workers exposed to toxins, or with no regard for species protection.

Instead of bankers and bureaucrats carrying out the policies of presidents to affect the lives of the very many without even a pretense at participation by those impacted on, the new institutions would be transparent, participatory, and bottom-up, with local, popular, democratic accountability. They would promote and organize international cooperation to restrain out-of-control global corporations, capital, and markets by regulating them so that people in local communities could control their own lives. They would promote trade that reduces financial volatility, enlarges democracy at every level from the local to the global, enriches human rights for all people, fosters environmental sustainability worldwide, and facilitates economic advancement of the most oppressed and exploited groups.

The new institutions would encourage the major industrial countries to coordinate their economic policies, currency exchange rates, and short-term capital flows in the public interest and not for private profit. They would establish standards to regulate financial institutions, directing the shift of financial resources from speculative profit-seeking to productive, sustainable development. They would establish taxes on currency transactions to reduce destabilizing short-term cross-border financial flows and to provide funds for investment in long-term environmentally and socially sustainable development in poor communities and countries. They would create public international investment funds to meet human and environmental needs and to ensure adequate global demand by channeling funds into sustainable long-term investment.

The new institutions would also work to get wealthy countries to write off the debts of impoverished countries and create a permanent insolvency mechanism for adjusting the debts of highly indebted nations. They would use regulatory institutions to help establish public control over global corporations and to curtail corporate evasion of local, state, and national law.

In addition, beyond getting rid of the IMF, World Bank, and WTO and replacing them with the dramatically new and different structures, anti-corporate globalization activists also advocate a recognition that international relations should not derive from centralized but rather from bottom-up institutions. New institutions gain their credibility and power from an array of arrangements and ties enacted at the level of citizens, neighborhoods, states, nations, and groups of nations on which they rest. And these more grassroots structures and bodies of debate and agenda-setting should also be transparent, participatory, and guided by a mandate that prioritizes equity, solidarity, diversity, self-management, and ecological sustainability and balance."
Albert, Michael. Parecon: Life After Capitalism, pp. 5-7

Mind you, the above is described within the context of a global capitalist order. A global socialist climate would unquestionably enhance the success of similarly structured international exchange and cooperation by many orders of magnitude.

Oh look, a website full of assclowns who think they're left wing...cute.

Also, kill whitey.

Sums up most revleft users perfectly...

Some of the RevLefters might have learned something if they hadn't been so busy seeking out their own entertainment via witch-hunting.
They used a snapshot of my outlook at the very beginnings of the break with WN, since that allowed them to claim "a-ha, fascist", rather than seriously examining the development processes of the long-term folks on here between that split and today. Needless to say, my views on race changed since April.

However, with that "kill whitey" statement, the current "RevLeft" have demonstrated their anti-Euroethnic bias, especially when it comes to working class and poor whites.
RevLeft and similar faux-leftists LIBERALS say "kill whitey". I ask, what is so progressive and so revolutionary about THAT?!

I understand your disgust man, but let's not dismiss all Revlefters. I came here from Revleft originally. And I think that there are many llike me, who posted there at first, but became disgusted with the thought-controller admins there and various other inquisitors there. I'm glad I found this site. And it was ironically their slanderous thread that brought me here.

Comrade Tito wrote:I understand your disgust man, but let's not dismiss all Revlefters. I came here from Revleft originally. And I think that there are many llike me, who posted there at first, but became disgusted with the thought-controller admins there and various other inquisitors there. I'm glad I found this site. And it was ironically their slanderous thread that brought me here.

Oh, I know that there are still several folks on RevLeft who are seeking revolutionary socialist solutions and they don't genuinely and unconditionally buy into the current faux-Left sacred cows. I hope that they come here.

Comrade Tito wrote:I understand your disgust man, but let's not dismiss all Revlefters. I came here from Revleft originally. And I think that there are many llike me, who posted there at first, but became disgusted with the thought-controller admins there and various other inquisitors there. I'm glad I found this site. And it was ironically their slanderous thread that brought me here.

Well, some level of pushback against the conspicuous libel that the pedagogues have been so inclined to post in that thread should be expected. Nevertheless, they (rightly) presume that most of RevLeft's membership will not bother to explore this forum's content in any meaningful capacity (and believe me, the forum's statistics clearly demonstrate this fact). That being said, the few who do actually bother to read through our discussions and debates will soon discover the true foundational and prevailing ideological framework that governs the Socialist Phalanx.

I think part of the problem with so much of the RevLeft crowd is that they are so institutionalized — due to the fundamental lack of freedom of speech/expression on that forum — that they are inherently incapable of interpreting this forum's policies, with respect to opposing view points, as anything but 'evidence' of some 'crypto-fascist' conspiracy. You see, rather than rejecting individuals on the basis of their current ideological dispositions, we adhere to a more liberal framework for participation — so that we can actually work towards winning people over to the cause of revolutionary socialism and left-wing nationalism.

RevLeft's policy, on the other hand, basically reduces itself to banning anyone who might hold a contrary opinion on some trivial matter — usually having nothing at all to do with socialism, but rather some cultural disagreement. Thankfully, we are not so insecure in our values to isolate ourselves in the way RevLeft (and much of the faux-Left) does. To them, socialism is a scene — something that is insulated and habitual — rather than an actual movement. This at least partially explains their irrational hostility towards the very notion of developing social organizations that are based upon a criteria that actually regards the national character of a given population to some extent.

Moreover, being cosmopolitans, they have long since abandoned notion of maintaining identities that possess any of the trappings of nationality. Rather, they tend to embrace identities that are based upon their economic roles (real or imagined), sexual orientations, etc. To be clear, there is nothing wrong with basing your identity upon such a (limited) criteria. The only problem is that the majority of the international working class actually does maintain a national identity of some sort. We, as left-wing nationalists, do not vainly seek to deprive the international working class of their respective (national) identities, but rather work towards establishing a conceptual basis for nationality itself that is no longer rooted in bourgeois/reactionary values. This in turn forges a union between national identity and international working-class solidarity, rather than perpetuating the historic dichotomy associated with them.

xx1994xx wrote:So basically you do understand the role of a nation in capitalist society because if you didn't then you wouldn't be a "left-wing nationalist". How could I argue with such profound logic? Obviously I've been proven wrong.

I understand that inarticulate dunces like yourself find it difficult to level an actual argument, so allow me offer you some advice. Tattoo the following words to your fucking forehead: Semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit!

When one makes an assertion, such as you did in your previous post, the burden of proof rests on your shoulders. For instance, if I were to charge that you were a 'fascist', it would be incumbent upon me to substantiate my claim with sufficient evidence. In this case, the assertion that this forum is exclusively composed of "reactionaries who don't understand the role of the nation in capitalist society" should be subject to the same criterion, lest you haven't any real interest in being taken seriously.

But, of course, you haven't any interest in being taken seriously. You simply wish to display your fidelity to the 'antifascist' cause (to your cyber-comrades on RevLeft) through redundant denunciation. Well, keep it up; I'm sure you're a big hit amongst your fellow scenesters... I mean socialist revolutionaries.

As for my previous response, I do not see how it fails to adequately address your statement, given the latter's vacuous character. I think it is reasonable to conclude that the conscious embrace of an expression of nationalism that explicitly rejects every bourgeois and reactionary component of divergent expressions thereof presupposes a sufficient knowledge of the problematic nature of nationality and nationalism within capitalist (and pre-capitalist) society.

Now, if you wish to get empirical, by all means do so. I welcome you and your cyber-comrades to actually read through the many discussions and debates pertaining to this very subject. Statements such as these should help you arrive at a reasonable conclusion:

Admin wrote:I would say that progressive nationalism is a form of collective identity based upon certain national bonds — those being subject to a criteria determined by a given community, rather than a bourgeois state or its predecessor. (The implications of this, within the context of the current distribution and character of so-called nation states, are self-evident.)

Furthermore, such a nationalism is inherently based upon a revolutionary socialist framework, so as to deprive it of the traditional preconditions that rendered preceding forms of (reactionary) 'nationalism' a vehicle for exploitation and imperialism. As such, progressive nationalism could only truly express itself following the abolition of capitalist social relations. In this respect, it can be argued that its development is entirely dependent upon the success of the worldwide socialist struggle against capitalism.

"Progressive nationalism"

Admin wrote:I would only stress that there is a qualitative difference between progressive/left-wing nationalism and other expressions of nationalism that cannot be obscured on account of historical context alone. For example, early American 'nationalism' was clearly not qualitatively progressive in a number of critical areas. As such, it should only be regarded as 'progressive' in relative terms.

Thus, while certain other expressions of nationalism may well possess some inherent (largely strategic) value, I would caution individuals not to conflate ('progressive') functionality with (progressive) ideological substance.

Incidentally, many of us here describe the tendency as 'left-wing nationalism', due to the ambiguity inherent to the term 'progressive nationalism'.

Progressive vs. reactionary nationalism

Admin wrote:On the other hand, addressing the systemic nature of the problems facing the world today requires that we part ways with bourgeois convention and stand for solutions that render our agenda fundamentally incompatible with traditional expressions of 'nationalism' — which utilize such social poisons as irrational scapegoating, conspiracy theories, and chauvinism/jingoism, in order to perpetuate capitalist social relations (or other reactionary forms of social stratification). This is what sets left-wing/progressive nationalism apart from the 'nationalism' inherent to such ideological constructs as National Socialism.

The Jewish Question

Admin wrote:So you make no effort to conceal your blatant chauvinism or imperialism, yet find these qualities compatible with left-wing nationalism?

The Jewish Question

Admin wrote:I trust I have not given the impression that I would any support expression of nationalism that wasn't itself based upon a framework of socialist emancipation.

Eugene Terre'Blanche schools a "colorblind" Liberal

Admin wrote:I think those of us who are left-wing nationalists have drawn a very clear distinction between what can generally be regarded as acceptable and unacceptable expressions of nationalism. As such, I am no more inclined to support a movement simply because it pursues a 'nationalist' agenda anymore than I am inclined to support a movement simply because it pursues an 'anti-capitalist' agenda. (Would I support a movement that desires a return to feudalism simply because it opposes capitalist social relations? Surely not. Similarly, I am not going to support a movement that promotes class collaboration, imperialism, etc. simply because it pushes back against certain social developments of recent decades.)

My support for a nationalist movement/cause is entirely contingent upon the totality of the ends it is endeavoring to achieve; for nationalism is not inherently 'noble'. It has been used for generations as a tool to perpetuate social injustices, the world over.

Eugene Terre'Blanche schools a "colorblind" Liberal

These opinions are broadly shared by a number of other members here, so I encourage all interested parties to investigate the matter for themselves.

Commissar Rykov wrote:[T]heir little Admin throws a fit and demands that he is right with out of context quotes...yet again. .

Due to the fact that I am quoting myself, I think I am in a better position to judge the given context. However, if there are any doubts, one could always visit the discussions/debates they are actually taken from, as I have openly urged any and all skeptics to do so and openly provided the links to those threads.

The Admin of Socialist Phalanx is a silly fellow that demands all "faux-leftists" don't do real work...

Speak for yourself. And for the record, I haven't demanded anything, apart from our detractors to actually provide evidence to substantiate their claims. (For the record, none of you have sufficiently met this challenge.)

As for my actual criticism — that most of the so-called revolutionaries on that forum are more interested in maintaining the 'purity' of their scene, rather than serving the cause of international proletarian revolution — I firmly stand by it.

I wonder what amazing contributions to the Proletariat he makes I am guessing nothing except ranting on a message board like a tosser.

Well, that's certainly not anything I would ever disclose to the likes of you and your cyber-comrades.

I do enjoy their deflections of racialism by saying they have a small handful of members who claim to not be racialist

You mean the actual founders of the forum and most of our active membership?

while they have discussions about Jews controlling finance, certain races and their "natural homosexual" tendencies amongst other shit I have seen regurgitated on Scumfront a thousand other times.

You mean the sorts of debates that have been confined to our Opposing Views (Reactionaries) section?

I'm making this post to respond to RevLeft user tachasomoza and to others on RevLeft who are interested.

It is true that I subscribed to a racialist conception from 2006 until about two months (late May to June) after I and several others here were expelled from Stormfront (in April 2011). The "evidence" that was used by some RevLefters to argue that "Coach Trotsky is a fascist" was plucked from commentary I made here soon after we were expelled from Stormfront in April 2011 for being "commies".
But in their search for evidence of my previous racialism expressed here on this forum in a snapshot of Socialist Phalanx's beginnings, they missed what happened afterwards.

No, we didn't just wake up one fine day and all decide at the same time that we didn't buy into the racialist conception any more. The next couple of months after our expulsion from Stormfront was characterized by some quite intense self-reflection and internal struggles within Socialist Phalanx about the nature of our socialism and our nationalism. This is where we really fundamentally broke with the Strasserite and Third Way racialist conceptions of socialism and nationalism. Indeed, Stormfront expelled us because they at some level sensed where our serious revolutionary rejection of capitalist relations and class collaborationism would lead. Their "white" was not the same as our "white", and that was even more the case in the eyes of most of us after a few months of being outside WN circles, after doing a lot of re-assessing of our views BECAUSE of our consistent commitment to a proletarian revolutionary socialism "from below". BECAUSE of this, we came to reject racial chauvinism and reactionary nationalism (and in favor of what we call 'progressive' or 'left-wing' nationalism, as described by the FAQ of this forum). It wasn't just a cosmetic change. You can see us arguing about this, before this very thread was started when some RevLefters discovered the existence of this forum (and eventually a few Leftie Sherlock Holmes wannabes discovered my presence here after much difficulty, since I clearly went out of my way to disguise this LOL). In fact, though you RevLefters unfortunately can't see it due to the fact that it only keeps records temporarily, but we here at Socialist Phalanx had much more intense discussions in this forum's chatbox.

We here have noticed the new wave of revolt taking place, beginning with the Arab Spring, and most recently expressed in the uprising in England's streets (you will notice that I had quite a bit to say about this uprising on RevLeft, and that my stance has NOTHING in common with racists/ fascists). What kind of 'fascist' aligns with, and seeks to advance/extend, this international wave of revolt by the poor and oppressed?
I overwhelmingly agree with the active intervention and arguments made by the RKOB regarding what they call the August Uprising (what some ostensible Leftists still call 'riots' and 'looting' in England). I expressed (though not nearly as thoroughly as they did) a similar stance and then overwhelming agreement with what the RKOB said on RevLeft as soon as I discovered this group of revolutionaries, just before I was banned from that forum.
http://www.rkob.net/new-english-language-site-1/uk-uprising-of-the-poor/
http://www.rkob.net/new-english-language-site-1/august-uprising/
http://www.rkob.net/new-english-language-site-1/uprising-the-left-in-britain/
Does this stuff touch a nerve, RevLeft? It should. It's a kick in the butt that all serious revolutionary socialists needed right now (myself included).
Perhaps what has made some of us at Socialist Phalanx receptive to the overall revolutionary politics of the RKOB is that we are outside the institutionalized centrist/reformist 'box' which the overwhelming majority of the "Left" is stuck in, and we don't orient to the labour aristocracy and middle class layers which most of the "Left" primarily does.

I want to engage RKOB and any other revolutionary socialists who generally agree with their stances of this wave of revolt, both to offer any assistance I can, and to offer revolutionary constructive criticism on those remaining issues where we still disagree (for instance, on left-wing nationalism).

Oh "Commisar Rykov", you just can't help but continue to spread your vile lies about our humble forum.

Commissar Rykov wrote:Strasserists and other Fascists don't use the term anymore there is a reason they are trying to rebrand and use the militancy of the Working Class. It worked for Mussolini and Hitler when they formed their Blackshirts and Stormtroopers. Don't take rhetoric at face value as their site is full of racialist discussions of how Jews control capital and other bullshit.

Perhaps in our Opposing Views section. Needless to say, such opinions are not embraced by this forum and specifically violate our policy — hence, why they are redirected to the OV section.

Also, don't dismiss this forum's ideological premise and corresponding policies as nothing more than mere 'rhetoric'. Now that the fact you haven't a rational basis for your libel against this forum has been exposed, you resort to peddling cheap conspiracy theories. (It appears as though you have not put that aspect of your fascist past behind you.)

I suggest you stop defending them as anything remotely revolutionary I have seen this shit a thousand times and it never changes. Just because Fascists don't come out and admit it doesn't mean they aren't. I've seen the movement adopt all kinds of labels Left-Wing Nationalism, Third Positionism, State Capitalist, Corporatist, etc.

This forum has never defined itself as Third Positionist, State Capitalist, Corporatist, etc., nor has it expressed any favorable sentiments towards those political/economic monstrosities. To the contrary, we have explicitly condemned such constructs and underscored our fundamental commitment to revolutionary socialism. Furthermore, not only have we never defined this forum as fascist, but have wholly rejected the entire ideological premise behind it. We have repeatedly demonstrated the inherent incompatibility between fascism and left-wing nationalism.

If you see nothing wrong with a site that allows homophobia, racialism, race baiting, and rampant Antisemitism then maybe you are the one on the wrong site?

Of course, we allow discussion about such issues in our Opposing Views section. Quite unlike forums like RevLeft, all opposing views are open for discussion, because we fully understand and appreciate the fact that most people do not share our views. How else can we reach out to those who have been misdirected into harboring unwarranted/counterproductive animosity towards others and humoring ridiculous theories (often, conspiratorial in essence) — all at the peril of working class emancipation — unless we allow productive debates to take place here?

You may be happy with a policy that encourages the stigmatization and dehumanization of those workers who have been deceived by bourgeois interest groups and sociopaths, but we in the Socialist Phalanx will forever do our best to liberate such individuals from the psychological bondage they happen to find themselves in.

rev-left is the bane of all communist's existence. I would not be surprised if they were an FBI planted provocateur group. It would certainly explain the "ban anyone who disagrees" mentality, then turn around and talking about building a bomb in your mom's basement next to your meth lab...

soviet empire.com is another crappy, hypocritical, bunch of wastes of air. I'm still unsure which one keeps stalking me and sending me death threats on youtube. amsterdam78?

MaoistRebel can't stand rev-left either. But doesn't want me mentioning him and revleft in the same sentence as they tend to attack his page, false flag all his videos, and generally harass them. They're bullies and terrorists.