The REDSTAR2000 Papers

Listen to the worm of doubt, for it speaks truth. - Leftist Discussion

Communists Against Religion -- Part 15 November 7, 2005 by RedStar2000

Part 15...and no end in sight!

It's been suggested that upon my demise these collections will be turned into some kind of book. I don't envy the fate of any editor who attempts this task. Explaining over and over again why communists must vigorously oppose all varieties of superstition has been far from "easy".

Considerable repetition of basic points has been necessary.

As well as "encounters with the famous", of course. This collection features some of my replies to Fidel Castro. Too bad he won't ever see them.

He might learn something. *laughs*


At first, I thought this story was going to be another "joke/mocking" thread...

quote (Philippine Daily Inquirer):

Holy water, incense exorcise House 'devils'

Wearing a white cassock and a purple stole, Fr. Robert Reyes, popularly known as the "running priest," yesterday "exorcised" the House of Representatives to rid it of evil spirits on the eve of impeachment hearings against President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.

Reyes and Fr. Raul "Puti" Enriquez led members of the Akbayan party-list group in sprinkling holy water and burning incense on the grounds and in the halls of the Batasang Pambansa complex in Quezon City to drive away "demons out to hide the truth."

"We vigorously implore the Spirit of Jesus to expel Satan and his evil presence in Malacañang and Congress. We command you Satan in the name of God and the Good of God's People [to] leave Malacañang ... leave Congress ... leave [the] Senate. Leave Satan! Satan leave! Let go!" the priest said.

He said acts of evil like dishonesty and cheating in whatever form were in collusion with the Prince of Darkness.

Akbayan members brought along a wreath of garlic to "ward off evil."

Very funny stuff, right? Especially the garlic wreath...presumably to protect against vampires. *laughs*

But down at the bottom, it stops being funny...


"Remember, the voice of the poor has not been heard. Do not be sure that the poor are quiet because they are for you. They are quiet because they do not yet know the truth," Bishop Tobias said.

"If you do not give them that, the time will come that they will take the truth in their own hands. God forbid this becomes the scenario in our country. So you either give the people the truth or we go down," he said.

Emphasis added.

Now there is a plain-spoken bishop! "God forbid" that the poor should "take the truth in their own hands."

Because if that happens, "we" (the clergy? the church? the whole leading elite in the Philippines?) "go down."

Yeah...and not even an ocean of "holy water" would save your sorry asses then, would it!
First posted at RevLeft on August 10, 2005


Ok, you atheist... Prove that God doesn't exist...


It's not as if the superstitious placed any significance in rational argument...indeed, they are vigorously opposed to human rationality as a matter of principle.

Appeal to rational argument, evidence, etc. is considered an aspect of "the sin of pride" -- the idea that mere humans could "know better" than "God" is outrageous to them.

When the superstitious demand "proof" that "God doesn't exist", they are acting in bad faith. It would not matter to them if science could explain "everything" without recourse to the "God hypothesis" -- they would still declare science to be "the work of the devil".

The real proof that "God doesn't exist" will be evident at such time that superstitions of all kinds have utterly vanished from the face of the earth.

"Gods" without worshipers don't exist.

That's why there's no "Temple of Zeus" in your neighborhood...or mine. *laughs*
First posted at RevLeft on August 12, 2005


"Exactly!"- affirmed the customer. "That's the point! God, too, DOES exist! What happens, is, people don't go to Him and do not look for Him. That's why there's so much pain and suffering in the world."

Nice try...but no cigar. *laughs*

In medieval Europe, worship of "God" was universal and compulsory. "God" rewarded this piety with...the black plagues.

In fact, the last 60 centuries or so have been characterized everywhere by worship of one sort or another. All of it evidently unpleasing to the "divinity" pain and suffering is and has been ubiquitous.

Only in the past couple of centuries have humans begun the process of substituting science for religion...and, curiously enough, the amount of pain and suffering has begun to decline, at least a little.

Granted, there is much more to do...the job is barely begun.

But we already know that there's nothing to be accomplished by "going to Him". Either "He" doesn't care or "He" doesn't exist.

Doesn't exist seems like the reasonable choice.
First posted at RevLeft on August 15, 2005

It's obvious that starting a new religion...or even just a new version of some existing religion is a highway "paved with gold". In America, the potential "market niche" is a whopping 80% or so of the "adult" population.

To be sure, the competition is ferocious. But you don't have to recruit everyone at once -- even a small "market share" can be worth millions or even tens of millions of dollars.

And as soon as one scam goes belly-up (your "holy guy" gets caught in a cheap motel with a hooker), you have a new one "ready to roll out".

In fact, there ought to be a way to franchise this stuff...a sort of "God-Mart" where the spiritually challenged could wander through the aisles of a "big box store" sampling hundreds or even thousands of cults.

"Attention, worshipers. Check out our special savings on healing crystal pyramids on aisle 17. Today's White Magick Special is a Level 8 Raise the Dead Spell for only $99.95".

Looking at America, it is sometimes very difficult to avoid despair.
First posted at RevLeft on August 18, 2005

quote (Fidel Castro):

Basing themselves on their faith, believers can take a revolutionary stand and...there need not be any contradiction between their being believers and revolutionaries.

Castro here asserts a possibility...but without supporting it in any way. He just says it "can happen".

I disagree. I think that anyone who takes "a revolutionary stand" and is also superstitious will quickly run into insurmountable difficulties...and will find themselves compelled to either abandon superstition or abandon their "revolutionary stand".

quote (Castro):

Moreover, I believe that this conclusion is perfectly in keeping with dialectics and Marxism.

Well, any statement can be made "in keeping with dialectics"...since "dialectics" is a kind of superstition in and of itself. Constructing a "Christian dialectics" or an "Islamic dialectics" would be perfectly feasible intellectual projects.

But justifying Castro's assertion in Marxist terms would be impossible -- so he doesn't even try.

quote (Castro):

I believe that, from the political point of view, religion is not, in itself, an opiate or a miraculous remedy. It may become an opiate or a wonderful cure if it used or applied to defend oppressors and exploited, depending on the approach adopted toward the political, social, or material problems of the human beings who, aside from theology or religious belief, are born and must live in this world.

Castro says "if it is used" -- when, in fact, it is always used to defend oppressors and exploiters.

quote (Castro):

From a strictly political point of view-and I think I know something about politics-I believe that it is possible for Christians to be Marxists as well, and to work together with Marxist Communists to transform the world.

I leave his claim to "know something about politics" to the hands of future historians.

His claim that Christians "can be Marxists" is self-evidently false -- and suggests that he doesn't really know very much about Marxism at all.

"Working with Christians" to "transform the world" is always an option -- but what results from such a collaboration will not have much to do with communism.

quote (Castro):

The important thing is that, in both cases they may be honest revolutionaries who want to end the exploitation of man by man and to struggle for a fair distribution of social wealth, equality, fraternity and the dignity of all human beings-that is, that they be the standard-bearers of the most advanced political, economic and social ideas, even though, in the cases of the Christians, their starting point is a religious concept.

Castro seems to think that "honesty" is a useful substitute for understanding.

That's not true.

Anyone may sincerely "want" to do all sorts of "nice things"...but, if one does not understand material reality, then one's desires are most unlikely to be realized -- even partially.

A Christian, by definition, does not understand the world as it really is.

quote (Castro):

Once again, I defend the principles taught by the Catholic church as far as the motivation for a personal internalized morality of caring for others, the hungry, the sick, and the exploited, wanting to end the exploitations and unnecessary struggle, social needs, equality, and the dignity of everyone. The organization of the Catholic church or any other religious organization has nothing to do with it, if you internalize the principles of a Christ consciousness.

Here Castro attempts to separate the infamous reactionary organization of the Catholic church from "Christ consciousness" -- and attempts to enlist the latter on the side of revolution.

Perhaps this illustrates his knowledge of "politics" -- try to split off the "best part" of your opposition and win them over to your side.

It's a difficult maneuver and one that rarely succeeds to any significant extent. People with "Christ consciousness" do not believe that there are or can be any "earthly" or "human" solutions to exploitation, poverty, humiliation, etc.

There is only charity...and redemption in "Heaven".

To engage in revolutionary struggle in order to permanently end the evils of class society is "un-Christian" -- it is, in fact, directly opposed to "the Will of God". (In Catholic theological terms, it's a manifestation of "the sin of pride" -- that humans know how to run things "better than God".)

Many people -- perhaps including Castro himself -- think of the communist project as a kind of "mega-charity"...a society in which people spend all their lives "caring for others".

That is simply an enormous misunderstanding.

The "nice things" that will be accomplished in a communist society are the by-products of much more fundamental changes -- namely, the abolition of wage-slavery and the devolution of political and economic power to the working class.

We are not for communism because it will "help the poor"...we are for communism because it will create a society in which the "poor" will no longer exist.

What role would there be, then, for Christians or followers of any other superstition?

Don't imagine for a second that Christians haven't asked themselves that same question.

Or that they like the answer.
First posted at RevLeft on August 22, 2005


Given the religious/political climate of Latin America, there seems to be the "possibility" to combine the two.

Of course that "possibility" exists -- the question is what would be the outcome?

Some people (perhaps including Castro himself) think that an alliance of communists and "grass-roots radical" Christians would produce a kind of "communism plus" -- a communist society that would still have a religious dimension.

I disagree. I think such an alliance would, at best, generate a tropical version of Scandinavia...a "welfare-state" variant of capitalist society. I think that's the ultimate limit of Christian vision...and very very few even approach that!

To a Christian, even the most rapacious capitalist can never become a class enemy -- he is, at worst, guilty of "sin"...which must be forgiven. (He must be forgiven because we "are all sinners" and in need of forgiveness.)

Consequently, the Christian lacks the necessary determination to carry the struggle through to the finish...he always ends up pleading with the exploiter to "sin less".

A plea which exploiters have been successfully ignoring throughout recorded history.


It seems to me that's exactly what is happening in Latin America. An evolution of two extremes that have found themselves accomplishing the same goals.

People claim this is "happening in Latin America"...but I see no evidence in support of such claims.

No doubt there are people still laboring to spread 'liberation theology" among the peasantry...even though the official church has completely abandoned it.

In the urban shanty-towns, it is Protestant evangelicals who are the most active religious recruiters...and their politics are usually conservative or even reactionary (though it's said that in Caracas some of them support Chavez).

On the other side, the most active revolutionary guerrillas (the FARC in Colombia) are reportedly anti-religious.

It seems to me therefore that those who say that communism and Christianity are "coming together" in Latin America have fallen victim to wishful thinking.


On one side, Communists balk at the ideal of Christ Consciousness as well as Christians rebuke Communism. But isn't what is emerging from Latin America a sort of "alliance of the ideals of both camps"? Winning the other side over as you stated, actually making the possibility of demolishing poverty a reality? Isn't it worth a shot?


First of all, the Christians have already had their chances to "demolish poverty"...and they've never done so or even made a serious effort in that direction. After 1,700 years of failure, why should anyone believe what they say now?

And secondly, all modern forms of class society require a large reservoir of "dirt cheap labor"...and hence poverty. How can employed workers be disciplined to obey orders if they cannot be replaced?

In fact, advanced capitalist societies need the desperately poor so badly that they import them in substantial numbers every year. If poverty were "demolished" in Venezuela or Colombia, the bosses there would start importing poor people from Paraguay, Bolivia, or Panama.

And the Church there would start building new cathedrals for in Los Angeles.
First posted at RevLeft on August 23, 2005

Want to hear something very sad?

I have just been through nearly six weeks of living in the areas devastated by two category 4 hurricanes. Only battery-powered radios featuring local stations were available as a source of information.

Along with official mis-information, the airwaves were polluted with endless assurances of "God's blessings". In the midst of desolation, we were repeatedly told that we were nevertheless "blessed" by "God".

I know that religious people are not "incurably stupid"...but I can understand how someone might reasonably reach such a conclusion. Even if it could be "proven" beyond contradiction that "God" existed, can any self-respecting person worship such a monumentally sadistic "entity"?

The very internal "logic" of religion lands you in a hopeless suggest that a self-evidently evil "entity" is worthy of human adoration!

No matter what your intentions might be, you will sooner or later end up doing evil in imitation of your Lord.

And you no more have any reason to be in the Commie Club than you have being in any association of rational people.
First posted at RevLeft on October 20, 2005


So what of those who found [in] Christ's compassionate message the impetus for their leftist beliefs; it's not called "the Atheist revolutionary left".

I'm a Christian socialist in the CC; suck it up.

As I saw during two hurricanes and am currently reading about Hurricane Wilma, I'm sure you have and are continuing to indulge yourself in many prayers of thanksgiving for these vivid demonstrations of "Christ's compassion" for we unworthy mortals.

Good work, Jesus!

No doubt it's my own sinful self-centeredness that prompts me to suggest that the motherfucker deserved crucifixion...if he was who he said he was.


There's no reason to exclude revolutionary believers, automatically, from membership in a revolutionary party...much less from helping administrate a generally leftist discussion board.

That Leninists have a "soft spot" for the faithful is not exactly "late-breaking news". What's the difference, after all, between "faith in the party" and faith in "God"?

As to reasons for exclusion, how about the one I offered? Those who "praise the Lord" after the hurricanes are, it seems to me, either self-declared enemies of humanity or suffer from such gross ignorance (or stupidity) as to be a self-evident liability.

Is it "rocket science" to suggest that a revolutionary movement (or any part thereof) needs informed people (not ignorant people)? Needs intelligent people (not stupid people)? Needs people motivated by benevolence (not people who celebrate the wrath of God's "punishment of sin")?

This may sound extreme to some -- perhaps arising from the fact that I've recently been through a fairly extreme situation. But my intolerance for godsucking of any kind has become even more extreme after the hurricanes.

I would support an outright ban of all religious people from this matter what form their faith took.
First posted at RevLeft on October 22, 2005


Feel free to blame your troubles on God if that makes you feel better. But the number and severity of this year's early hurricane season is likely a symptom of global warming, and North and South polar ice caps melting.

I do not "blame my troubles" on entities which do not exist.

Rather, I directly challenge your assertion of a "compassionate" deity.

The logic of your position compels certain admissions on your part.

Your deity is unable to save his worshipers from natural catastrophe. He's a fake!

Or...your deity is actively hostile to human well-being -- an enemy of humanity who deserves total destruction.

Or what? What do you have to say for your "compassionate" and "all-powerful" God?

Oh, let me guess! Your reference to global warming suggests that you'd like to blame human activity (industrialization) for the most violent hurricane season since 1933!

Perhaps you might explain your scenario in more detail. We were, after all, a lot less "sinful" in 1933 -- that is, far smaller amounts of "greenhouse" gases were produced and released into the atmosphere 70 years ago than now. Was your Lord "distracted" and only just "got around" to punishing us this year?

You might also want to look into the poor quality of "divine aim". Destroying that "pesthole of sin" once known as New Orleans probably commends itself to you. But southwestern Louisiana is a "bastion of Christian faith" if there ever was one. There's literally a church on just about every block. The local dummyvision station actually runs daily commercials for churches in prime time.

How could your Lord wreck such enormous devastation on his faithful worshipers? Is he just really sloppy? Was he aiming at Houston and missed?

You see the problem? Even if a "god" existed, the assertion of any connection between it and any reasonable conception of compassion totally collapses in the face of indisputable evidence.

If you "worship God", then, like it or not, you worship evil!

I do not think we need people like you on this board.
First posted at RevLeft on October 22, 2005


I'm not God so I can't say what He was thinking.

I was not asking you to speculate on the "thinking processes" of your Lord. I was demanding of you a moral judgment.

Assuming for the sake of argument that your Lord actually exists, what is your considered opinion of his deeds?

Look upon his works and then tell us that "you're a nice guy" and "would never do things like that".

On what possible grounds do you expect us to believe that? You praise a "god" for "compassion" when, by your own logic, that "god" is responsible for unimaginable horror!

If Jesus can utterly destroy a city, why should one of his followers not do likewise?

Sinners must be punished, right?

How does what that good Christian George W. Bush is doing to Iraq differ from what his Lord and Savior "did" to New Orleans, Gulfport, Biloxi, Cameron, etc.?

Are you going to suggest that it's "ok" for "God" to do that stuff but "not ok" for his worshipers to walk in his footsteps?



Even after 70 years of religious discrimination and suppression in the former USSR, religion has emerged from the underground just as vibrant as it was before it became illegal. Even in China churches are underground because these people place more trust in their religion than in the writings of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Mao, et al. The reality is that the majority of the proletariat are religious with the exception of a handful of atheists. So, in other words, the majority of the proletariat will be gulaged after the revolution because of their religious views?

A preposterous "summary" of the present situation.

The present Russian government uses the Eastern Orthodox Church to give itself legitimacy. But the number of believers is a very tiny portion of the Russian working class. In no sense does religion have even remotely the importance in Russia that it had before 1917.

Traditional Chinese religions are certainly making a comeback with the restoration of capitalism in that hapless country. It is still, after all, a predominately peasant-dominated land...with all the rural ignorance that implies. Nevertheless, I suspect that the urban working class there remains atheist...whatever their "loss of faith" in the utterings of Chairman Mao.

The western European working class is, of course, predominately atheist and has been so for many decades. Religion is dying in Europe except among Muslim immigrants.

It is my thesis that only an atheist working class can make a viable communist revolution. Revolutions that take place as a consequence of an uprising of believers will "at best" result in a transfer of faith from "God" to "the Party"...and just turn to shit.

The "gulags" will be of their own manufacture. Do not forget that Stalin went to a religious school when he was a kid.


Religious and spiritual views have been around for thousands of years in every culture on this planet and most likely will be around for thousands of years to come.

The truth of the initial premise offers no guarantee of the truth of the conclusion.

Up until sometime in the middle of the 18th century, it was "common wisdom" that every form of social organization necessarily involved some form of slavery. Every society needed slaves.

Now, though slavery still exists, it is widely regarded with horror and disgust. It hasn't yet been completely abolished, but those who traffic in humans are held in contempt and, when caught at it, go to prison.

Why should not those who traffic in human gullibility suffer a similar fate? When they are no longer "respected" and "honored" members of the elite but rather publicly regarded to be on the same level as child-abusers, how many will still "follow them"?


What keeps the vast majority of proletariets under exploitation is because they feel safer under capitalist rulership since the capitalist ruling class is no threat to their spiritual belief system(s).

Come now! Of all the explanations for the domination of capitalist ideology over the proletariat, this one is the most bizarre that I've ever encountered.

Is it not rather the case that the persistence of religion is a product of elite propaganda? Religion is especially useful to social elites of all kinds. It provides "cosmic justification" for their earthly power, wealth, etc. Naturally, they do all they can to encourage it.

Whenever a worker loses her/his conviction that the "powers that be" really "deserve" their eminence, what's left of the "cosmic justification"? If those whom "God has appointed" to rule over us turn out to be unfit to rule, what does that say about religious considerations of all kinds?


You know it is funny to think that those here want to be totally like Marx (atheist) kinda sound like Xians who want to be like Jesus.

Being a communist is not a matter of some childish "imitation of Marx". To the extent that we are able to assimilate Marx's methods of understanding class society and "how it works", we are "being like Marx".

I adopted an atheist perspective ("there are no gods") before I had ever heard of the name of Marx, much less any of his ideas. A rational and scientific outlook towards the universe demands atheism...a point grasped by serious believers as early as the 17th century. The power of reason (critical discourse) is a dagger at the heart of every religious conceit and fabrication.

I've never made any kind of systematic search on the subject, but my experience suggests that most atheist websites are not evenly remotely "Marxist".

Atheism is a conclusion of modern rational thought...and Marx was an atheist because he was a modern rational thinker.
First posted at RevLeft on October 22, 2005

You have a curious idea of rational discourse. For example, you evidently think remarks like "that's your opinion" constitute a "crushing refutation".

They don't.

Likewise, your statement that I "am full of myself today" is presumably intended to discredit those opinions.

It doesn't.

The "opinions" that I express are based on rational argument and least to the best of my capabilities. You are perfectly free to find fault with either my evidence or my arguments...but then you must actually do that.

For example, the links you posted are so grossly biased that I can't see how you would expect any of us to take them seriously. The Russian Embassy? The Department of the (U.S.) Army? Both have a declared self-interest in promoting superstition.


Oh, only Capitalism brings religion back to the masses. But of course they are just ignorant peasants who don't know any better.

Well yes, they are "ignorant peasants who don't know any better". The condition of the peasantry is one of ignorance.

Do you deny this self-evident fact?


In other words, only true Chinese workers are Leninist Maoist but lost their faith in their former Chairman.

I'm not sure what you intend to imply with this semi-coherent statement, but I did not suggest that urban Chinese workers are at this time "Leninist-Maoist". I have no idea as to the remaining appeal (if any) of Leninism-Maoism to Chinese workers.

I do think it most likely that they are uninterested in superstitions, ancient or modern. They were educated in at least the rudiments of modern science during and even after the "Mao era".


On the other hand, they are no closer to revolution than their American counterparts who are more religious--just check out the parking lots every Sunday morning.

Yet another cryptic remark...unless you are suggesting that western Europeans flock to church every Sunday morning. Every European "religious leader" that I've ever heard pontificate on the subject has done nothing but endlessly piss and moan over Europe's "empty churches".


I never wrote that there would be a transfer of God(s) to the so-called Party.

Nor did I suggest that you did. It is my thesis that a social order permeated with superstitious servility will see that servility (faith) replicated even if it is "officially" atheist.


Did you not notice the Party turned to shit on its own?

No, I missed that one. The idea of "the Party" as some kind of "independent variable" that's unaffected by the society in which it finds itself is clearly nonsense.


What I was writing about was just being tolerant of people's differing belief systems which you have about as much as a Neo-Nazi.

Possibly true...but so what?

You are, perhaps, one of those who extol "tolerance" as among the loftiest of "human virtues". I am not "with you" on that.

The difference between me and the "Neo-Nazi" is that we have a different set of tolerances and intolerances. The Neo-Nazi would kill me if he thought he could get away with it. I would do the same to him under similar circumstances.

And you? Who knows what you would do? Perhaps deliver a lecture on tolerance?


I can see your point regarding slavery but it does not equal religion as in buying and selling of humans and all the nasty things that are associated with it.

Here I think you expose your ignorance of the actual history of religion and its present-day practices. The list of "nasty things" associated with religion is a very long one.


I have been around almost as long as you have on this Earth and that is the consensus I have found among people of faith. They are scared shitless that Communist/Socialist will take their places of worship from them and imprison them. Why don't you find this out for yourself firsthand instead of arguing against what people believe. You just might learn something.

I quite agree that the seriously religious are implacably hostile to socialism and communism. But I think you miss the reason for that hostility.

Communism means the end of the godracket. It means everyone will be educated in a modern scientific understanding of the universe. It means everyone will know enough of the dirty history of religion to find it thoroughly disgusting. It means our public spaces will no longer be polluted with huge memorials to superstition and ignorance. It means that those who advocate superstition will no longer be considered "honorable leaders" of society.

Of course they hate communism! I would feel the same way in their shoes. I would rant and rave against "godless Communism" as the greatest horror in human history.

But, since I'm on the communist side, I do the exact opposite. I do all within my capabilities to attack, undermine, and destroy all forms of religious servility.

In my opinion, that's what communists do!

In your own case, I don't really think that you've decided which side you are on.


Religion is a tool that the elite know how to use. Why is the Left so hesitant to use that tool to justify common ownership of the means of production?

Because we do not wish to lie to the masses. Nor do we wish to "trick" them into supporting us "for their own good".

Our revolutionary duty is to tell people the truth to the best of our abilities. The notion that we could cleverly manipulate people into liberating themselves from class society is bullshit!


But you seem to revolve around Xian constructs. What of the pagans and non-Xians who do not consider any deities putting anyone in authority as eminent leaders or justify wealth?

What about them? Right now, pagan religions are cults...socially marginal to the point of insignificance.

But consider this. I've heard that the U.S. Army has recently appointed "Wiccan chaplains" to minister to the "spiritual needs" of Wiccan soldiers in service to U.S. imperialism.

Now if this is true, what does this tell you about the Wiccan superstition? That it is fully prepared to supply "cosmic justification" for imperialist aggression in order to become an accepted part of capitalism's religious establishment.

As I've noted in other threads, the reason that the vast majority of my anti-religious polemics concentrate against Christianity is simply a reflection of the dominant influence of that particular superstition in the "west" and thus on the readers of this board.

But superstition, at root, is all the same. If you imagine that one of them "is different from all the others", I simply invite you to watch what happens when that "different" one gets a shot at going "mainstream" (with all the rewards that entails). I believe the appropriate description is "happy as hogs in slop".


As I wrote makes no difference what is proven or scientific. Many people remain religious no matter what is presented. I don't know why this is so.

Childhood indoctrination is the most reasonable explanation. Once that is halted, religion will die "of old age".


And anyone who is not an atheist is not a modern rational thinker.

First posted at RevLeft on October 25, 2005
· Welcome
· Theory
· Guest Book
· Hype
· Additional Reading
· Links

· Contact
Latest Theory Collections
· Communists Against Religion -- Part 19 June 6, 2006
· Conversations with Capitalists May 21, 2006
· Vegetable Morality April 17, 2006
· Parents and Children April 11, 2006
· The Curse of Lenin's Mummy April 3, 2006
Defining Theory Collections
· What Did Marx "Get Wrong"? September 13, 2004
· Class in Post-Revolutionary Society - Part 1 July 9, 2004
· Demarchy and a New Revolutionary Communist Movement November 13, 2003
· A New Type of Communist Organization October 5, 2003
· The "Tools" of Marxism July 19, 2003
· Marxism Without the Crap July 3, 2003
· What is Socialism? An Attempt at a Brief Definition June 19, 2003
· What is Communism? A Brief Definition June 19, 2003
· A New Communist Paradigm for the 21st Century May 8, 2003
· On "Dialectics" -- The Heresy Posts May 8, 2003
Random Quote
...the traditional family is very good at creating new generations of "good Germans" who will "carry out their orders".  

Search Internet
Search Website
· There have been 3 users active in the past 15 minutes.

Copyright © 2003-2006 -- Some rights reserved.