>Usually, its global warming or refugees.
you don't think global warming is a thing?
I don't think global warming is relevant to anything. We are not going to be hit by a super-tsunami tomorrow nor Capitalists will stop polluting the fuck out of everything, if we decide to surrender Socialism in favour of Environmentalism - as Green politicians imply.
I think that so-called "green politics" (as they are implemented now - by Capitalist-controlled states) are harming planet, rather than protecting it.
You want to save planet? You do the World Revolution first. That's the only way it works. Anything else is a delusion.
[banhammer in 3.. 2..]
was the purge of old bolsheviks necessary?
Loaded question. We are not sharing the underlying assumptions here (unlike you, I do not worship Stalin as almighty and omniscient). Consequently, even if given, my answer would be meaningless to you.
what about the removal of german socialist refugees in the 30s?
Were tanks necessary with Hungary '56 or CZ '68?
Again - we do not share the same understanding of events. If I'll say that tanks in Budapest were both counter-revolutionary and absolutely necessary, you will not be able to parse this as anything but me claiming that counter-revolution was necessary. Which is the opposite of my opinion.
>There were some other cases when clearly pro-Communist posts get purged
the hotpockets have been rather heavy lately, i've been posting less as a result too. BO seems to want to undermine their own board.
This trend has been going on for more than a year. If anything, BO had been unbanning me - after repeated posting of deleted posts via proxy.
>Except this fact is not relevant to anything
>the discussion on whether or not should Socialism/Communism be used interchangeably.
It's a point of contention, especially between leftcoms and MLs. I've seen the argument several times on this board.
Again: we are not arguing about terms as such. It's just an intermediary.
When the state and its bureaucracy decides where and how one works it isn't democractic control in the sense that people think of democracy.
Yes, it is. Provided state and bureaucracy are controlled by the people and are used to express their opinion in an organized fashion.
In fact, it is impossible for any large-scale democracy to exist without state or bureaucracy.
States dominated by a democratic-centralist vanguard cadre party in general aren't thought to be democratic in any real sense.
By Liberals. I consider such an approach to be the most democratic (given other necessary qualities, of course).
If one holds that such states are democratic then democracy has to be redefined to something it isn't in common parliance.
Lenin: "Freedom in capitalist society always remains about the same as it was in ancient Greek republics: Freedom for slave owners."
"Common parlance" you are talking about is nothing but liberal propaganda.
> when you stealthily substitute it with another and pretend that this is what it actually meant all along. I.e. it is falsification of existing theory.
I see. Why are Kruschev and Deng called a revisionist then?
Because they did that. For example, Khrushchev essentially splintered Central Planning of Soviet Union (attack on "common plan" under which industry should operate) and forced kolkhozs to acquire agrotech (partially restoring private property relations and accumulation of capital in farming sectoring).
Similarly enough, Deng invented some sort "Chinese" Socialism that was based on the assumption that in China of Capitalism as of yet is not hindering economic development (which he maintained up to his death in 1990s) and market economy is somehow more effective that Planned.
On top of it, both were proven to be wrong before they've done it. For example, Stalin personally argued against acquisition of agrotech by kolkhozs - and Khrushchev never refuted anything, initially agreeing that he was wrong and then treated refutation as if it never existed.
>You are not simply stealing someone's authority to defend your own position
So if appeals to authority were dismissed immediately, revisionism wouldn't be a concern?
No. I explicitly wrote that it is not limited to this alone. And you quoted this bit.
The core of Revisionism is destruction of collected experience. You have to dismiss all of it as "appeals to authority" to do away with Revisionism - but that would leave you repeating the basest of mistakes again and again.
One quote out of context does not make Marx Anarcho-Capitalist.