Please post all screencaps of rafiq posts that you have. Bonus points if they have the old RevLeft theme. I will probably also spend some time this weekend going through old RevLeft posts and finding some good ones. I honestly enjoy reading rafiq almost as much as reading Marx, and want to put them all together into something. Maybe a website. Maybe an audio-post video series. Idk. Let me know what would be cool.
Post Rare Rafiq's
Other urls found in this thread:
Stop cocksucking rafiq. He isn't that great and only literal brainlets can't engage on his level and worship his revleft posts.
lol no he is one of the most important theorists of our time
It's a meme you idiot, no one takes his shit seriously
fuck off rafiq
It's a shitty meme and you should feel bad for propagating it.
Don't fucking talk to me if you're not giong to read my posts -if my post are "too long to read" then DON'T RESPOND. If you respond, I expect you to actually engage with the points at hand, not brush them over casually with your "…"'s and "sure rafiq, u have no argument". For FUCK'S sake.
Originally Posted by PhoenixAsh
This argument in your deranged line of reasoning is somehow more true than the "higher good" of the Nazi's, Bush administra
Next PA will explain to us the merits of the horseshoe theory of politics. The fact that both Fascists and Communists use violence to crush their enemies, apparently, equates them. What is the basis of this equivalence? The cowardly emphasis on "violence". Well your beloved order rests upon systemic violence on a regular basis, in fact, our violence is nothing more than a measurement of the violence which sustains bourgeois society, we draw the rats out and they fight as rabidly as they ever could.
Here we FUCKING go again, as though there is an equivalency in POWER, as though power is sustained by the same forces, for the same reason, across the fucking board. The fact of the matter is that as I already stated before, if you actually, carefully read my fucking post - you cannot draw any level of equivalency because only liberals believe in such myths as the state compromising "those who lead" and "the people". The basis of Nazi power was in the industiral bourgeoisie, war barons and the then privatized banks, and it is BY THEIR WILL that the Nazis exercised power. So even if the Nazis used ALL OF THE SAME METHODS as the Bolsheviks, this would not give them an iota of equivalency, because they are USING THEM FOR ENTIRELY DIFFERENT FUCKING REASONS. Only the bourgeois-morality, the stupid fucking sentimentality will draw a basis of equivalency because it cannot recognize class difference, because, according to this morality of the present state-apparatus, "killing is killing, no matter who does it, or why" - the act itself is absolved from its context, hence, a cowardly emphasis is placed on mere ABSTRACTIONS because they threaten the power of the EXISTING order (i.e. ruptures its foundations) regardless of where they come from.
You keep phrase-mongering BULLSHIT like "bourgeois" and "reactionary mentality" to accommodate for your own conservatism and counter-revolutionary sentimentality, but the truth is that the entire basis of your comparison is thoroughly bourgeois itself, what you fail to understand is that in a true conflict, and not some kind of glorified misunderstanding, each belligerent cannot "morally" criticize the other in the sense of expecting anything different, a true enemy is an enemy in ESSENCE, no matter of I "hear his story out'. According to PA, the class war is some kind of giant misunderstanding wherein all sides are both morally wrong for employing the means of annihilating the enemy, on a universal basis of morality because in the end, they all "objectively want the same thing". But only those in POWER have the privilege of touting such nonsense - the truth is that the proletariat and the bourgeoisie do NOT want the same thing, and therefore, there is no equivalency in their means of sustaining power and suppressing those who threaten them. Now PA will tell us that "reverse sexism" and "reverse racism" are real, because they use the "same arguments and mentality" as sexists and racists, on account for his myopic theoretical insight. It is beyond fucking stupid.
Here Phoenix presents us some kind of universal morality that amounts to the idea that the moral quality of an act is "universal" across class lines. We then follow that the murder of counter-revolutionaries is, exactly the same for us as the murder of revolutionaries. This is an ethics alien to Communism.
The fact of the matter is that it couldn't 'legitimize" acts under any state, because we don't expect anything different from them. The bourgeois state does not constrain itself because it is benevolent, it does so because it would be overthrown in a day. But listen, we don't seek to justify the terror for you, a reactionary. And it's pretty FUCKING disgusting that you mention ethnic genocides as a comparison, because in doing so you approximate the plain of action of revolutionaries as necessarily BEING THE SAME as that of the Nazis or Serbian nationalists. In other words, the idea that "what else were we supposed to do" is EMPTIED of its essential subjective context, and it is merely assumed that everyone in a position of power wants the same thing. For the Nuremberg trials, for example, the argument used was not "what were we supposed to do" but that they were "just following orders". Well, it might very well be a fact that the holocaust was necessary to sustain the power of the NAZIS and that anti-semitism was necessary to sustain the NAZI identity, but what is necessary for the sustenance of power for Nazis, and what is necessary for the sustenance of power for Communists is not identical. I can't fucking believe the red terror is now being abstracted from its context and assumed to be ethically identical to any other violent act - who the FUCK thinks like this if not a bourgoeis ideologue?
The point is the essential question: FOR WHAT PURPOSE is this "terror" being used, who is using it, and so on - without this, there is NO SUBSTANCE to any violent act, and therefore, no legitimate basis for drawing an ethical conclusion from it. I mean, are you fucking kidding me? What's hilarious is that first you tell us that the terror was necessary to sustain the Bolshevik dictatorship, and then you say that it wasn't necessary to defeat the counter-revolution. This pre-supposes a disparity between the rule of the Bolsheviks and the possibility of the revolution being saved, but no such disparity exists - the fate of the revolution was irrevocably tied to the fate of the proletarian dictatorship led by the Bolsheviks, and no matter your incessant abuse of words as "evidence" (WHAT DOES THIS EVEN MEAN?) this is what every anti-Communist historian, the same historians YOU YOURSELF cite, are able to recognize, they merely oppose the revolution all together.
For FUCK'S SAKE, I can't fucking believe what I'm arguing with! Again:
HOW THE FUCK ARE THEY THE SAME? HOW? WHAT RIGHT DO YOU HAVE TO DRAW THE BASIS OF EQUIVALENCY ON THE DEGREE OF USAGE OF VIOLENCE AND FORCE? Why does VIOLENCE and FORCE, and using it, serve as the BASIS of IDENTITY? It is fucking STUPID and frankly POSTMODERNIST. "Wawawa they're all the same! The Communists and Nazis are too extreme, and therefore the same… we must draw a middle ground".
The moral superiority has nothing to do with a moral superiority vis a vis some kind of universal, cosmic, divine morality, or a pretense to "humanity", but amounts to the reality that our morals are not theirs. For them, killing is justified to defend property relations. For us, it is justified to destroy them. How this is conceived is not in regard to the individual preferences of people, but classes. That two enemies both use swords, does not make them the same. It makes them the same, in terms of their willingness to use violence to defeat their enemies, AND THAT IS IT. Let Trotsky speak for me:
“But, in that case, in what do your tactics differ from the tactics of Tsarism?” we are asked, by the high priests of Liberalism and Kautskianism.
You do not understand this, holy men? We shall explain to you. The terror of Tsarism was directed against the proletariat. The gendarmerie of Tsarism throttled the workers who were fighting for the Socialist order. Our Extraordinary Commissions shoot landlords, capitalists, and generals who are striving to restore the capitalist order. Do you grasp this … distinction? Yes? For us Communists it is quite sufficient.
In fact the Red Terror went directly against the wishes of the Soviets and was widely condemned by the communists elected to those Soviets…the majority of them Bolsheviks who had the courage to directly oppose the central party authority…and often were severely penalized for it. There it is was argued that the Red Terror negatively impacted the position of the Bolsheviks, support for the revolution and worsened the economic productivity (because of mass arrests and executions) and pushed previously loyal and supporting people towards the White Counter Revolution.
I asked you, I fucking asked you very plainly to PROVIDE EVIDENCE THAT SUGGESTS THAT THE SOVIETS CONDEMNED THE RED TERROR EN MASSE. You claim that it "pushed people into supporting the white counter-revolution" - really? Did the RED TERROR do this? All we can recall, from the memoirs of American generals:
Semeonoff and Kalmikoff soldiers, under the protection of Japanese troops, were roaming the country like wild animals, killing and robbing the people, and these murders could have been stopped any day Japan wished. If questions were asked about these brutal murders, the reply was that the people murdered were Bolsheviks and this explanation, apparently, satisfied the world. Conditions were represented as being horrible in Eastern Siberia, and that life was the cheapest thing there. There were horrible murders committed, but they were not committed by the Bolsheviks as the world believes. I am well on the side of safety when I say that the anti-Bolsheviks killed one hundred people in Eastern Siberia, to everyone killed by the Bolsheviks.
Others would note that the barbarism of the white counter-revolution in the countryside was pushing more and more people to the Bolsheviks, with generals noting that peasants were joining the Reds en masse. So contra to the notion that the red terror "pushed people to the white counter-revolution", if anything, the entire conglomeration of all events was greatly in the favor of the Bolsheviks and the Red Army - and make no mistake, what you fail to understand is that terror was not exercised against ordinary people, but those who were ACTIVELY attempting to undermine the revolution, this followed logically from mass killings, assassinations, acts of sabotage and the irk from peasants withholding grain, from the bourgeois press spreading lies and slander openly, and yes - marginally, from SOME workers provoked by foreign saboteurs to sabotage the holistic proletarian dictatorship. You're literally just making shit up at this point, and the picture you're trying to paint of the Bolshevik revolution is so hilariously stupid it doesn't even consistently conform to any standard of reason, liberal or otherwise. First the terror was unnecessary, and then lo and behold, it was actually necessary to sustain the "one party dictatorship'. Liberals believe the latter, and naive Communists believe the former. But to believe both suggests a major case of cognitive fucking dissonance, which isn't surprising considering it's you we're talking about after all, who constantly needs to sustain his beliefs with incessant schizohprenic shitposting and apologia that violates Occam's razor in every possible way.
This was also the criticism of several members of the party elite and long time members of the Bolshevik party some of which directly condemned the limitations placed on actual and long time proven revolutionaries to effectively have internal critical positions within the party debates. Most of these members were sooner or later expelled from the party. Even supporters of the Red Terror were heavily critical of the way it was used to suppress the working class and the Soviet Democracy…again…most of these were either expelled or imprisoned.
It's hilariously stupid that you keep using the fact that internally many criticized the terror in its expression for the idea that somehow, the terror was holistically condemned. Every bumfuck idiot recognized that the terror was absolutely necessary, what they opposed were the specifialities of how it was ordained in some cases - these were problems that were well known to both Dzerzshinsky and Lenin, who did everything they could to severely punish abusers. The fact of hte matter is that - YES excesses occurred, but what the fuck do you expect? These were severely punished when they could be. You claim that the "party elite" intentionally did not put any limitations on the activities of Chekists, which assumes that they were in a position to more amply deal with the abuses - whihc were hardly "definitive" of the Cheka, by the way, they were mostly MARGINAL. But nevermind that, you're simply living a pure fucking fantasy. I've already addressed this as well:
including the paraphrasing of the abstract meaningless notion of doing it for the classes.
But apparently, doing things for "liberty" or "the people" or for "freedom" accurately reflect objective reality, yeah? The fact of the matter is that what's FUCKING HILARIOUS is that the Nazi rhetoric was DISPLACED and STOLEN from the failed revolution, YES the nazis merely replaced the word "capitalist" with "Jew", "class" with "race" - but that was the POINT, they HAD to displace the logic of class struggle precisely so that NOTHING WOULD CHANGE, so that the social order would remain stable and untouched by political developments. This is what you fail to fucking understand: The nazis barely changed anything, the Bolsheviks, conversely, transformed society TO THE CORE. Some stupid fucking rhetoric about "race" didn't lead to any real changes which shook the foundations of society, it was a fucking SPECTACLE, meanwhile, class-based politics in Russia completely, and expectedly, TRANSFORMED society as a whole in EVERY possible way. What's great about this stupid, hysterical fucking rhetoric, is that you don't have to answer for anything, because the ideology behind your attacks will NEVER ascend to power, never lead to any meaningful affirmative political action. You will never be faced with the responsibilities of power, and all the dilemmas that follow from it, you just can cowardly sit back and prattle of how the Bolsheviks were 100% the same as the Nazis because they used violence, which apparently defines the essential substance of an entity because.. You're a fucking liberal.
You are the one contending the Red Terror was an absolute necessity. Yet you fail to provide even ONE single coherent argument that does not stoop to the levels of kindergarten rhetoric.
"You say it was necessary, and yet you haven't provided a SINGLE argument which I can agree with at face value, because I am so theoretically myopic and so morally threatened by images of men clad in black with revolvers shooting the 'natural superiors' of society that I can only project my transfixed aversion, deeply rooted in a bourgeois pathology, onto a meaningless, barely aesthetically coherent leftist rhetoric".
But make no mistake. This is not about the use of violence. This is about the indiscriminate state sponsored use of violence to silence the opposition to a clique trying to hijack the revolution and subjugating the working class in the process.
"This is not about the use of violence. This is about the use of violence outside of an implicitly recognized impossible fantasy where violence can be used in a way that is pretty and easy-going".
[FONT="Courier New"] “We stand for organized terror - this should be frankly admitted. Terror is an absolute necessity during times of revolution. Our aim is to fight against the enemies of the Revolution and of the new order of life. ”
― Felix Dzerzhinsky [/FONT]
is this a snowclone? tl;dr either way
Haha idk what a snowclone is. The post was too long to take a screenshot of so I tried copying and pasting, but it was still waayyy to long so I gave up. Maybe I'll turn it into a pdf.
Holy shit I copied it into a document and it is literally 9 pages long. How long did he spend on that? Who does this? Who is this man?
maybe he just does a lot of addies or something?
Holy shit this is glorious
Philmarilion: RevLeft Edition
THE PROPHET HAS SPOKEN
Edited by Walter B. and L. A., Short Biographical Sketch provided by K. M. O. V.
Rafiq was born as the amnesic reincarnation of Dzerzhinsky. That’s all you need to know about Rafiq’s past as an idealist. Rafiq’s first recorded involvement with The Young Materialists (In Correspondence, in response to a famed Young Materialist, The Vegan Marxist) was the rather humble message, “How are you doing comrade..”
And so began the actual Marxist tradition in the 21st century.
This first volume consists of the works of the “Late Late Late Late Neo Late Post Neo Late Rafiq”, who, despite his “old heart” condition, still manages to school
WORTHLESS IDIOTS WHO JUST DON’T FUCKING UNDERSTAND HIM.
-K. M. O. V.
can't stop laughing
here's a rare pepe for you faggots
Holy shit. Cult of personality already forming. This is hilarious and alarming at the same time. I am reading this entire thing.
I, Rafiq, do not laugh.
Me to. I honestly can't find anywhere were he is wrong about anything except where he says that vaping is as bad for your lungs as smoking cigarettes.
Guy who compiled this fucked up the direction of the Arabic text.
ETINU DLROW EHT FO SREKROW