Comment Policy

The American Party of Labor and the editorial staff of the Red Phoenix would like to thank you for your time in reading the Red Phoenix‘s comment policy. While we do appreciate comments and discussion about the topics we cover with our audience, there needs to be some rules in place to protect not only the Phoenix but its readers.
Therefore, readers of the Red Phoenix who wish to comment need to be aware of these rules, guidelines, policies and procedures.

1) All comments on the Red Phoenix are moderated. They always have been moderated and always will be moderated.  The Red Phoenix is an organ of the American Party of Labor—a political party in the United States. As such, for our own protection we retain the right to delete, not publish, or edit any comment for any reason that we feel necessary.

2) We would like to point out that while Section 1 of this comment policy is quite general, we have some very specific grounds to edit or delete comments outright. These are any comments, words or phrases that are considered offensive or pornographic, contain swear words one would not typically hear on prime-time broadcast television in the US, or that contain racist, sexist, homophobic, or xenophobic messages. Furthermore, the editorial staff reserves the right to interpret what is or is not not offensive, racist, sexist, homophobic or xenophobic.

3) The posting of links to one’s own or a third party’s blog(s), article(s) or website(s) is strictly limited to being germane to the topic being commented upon. Any and all links to one’s own or a third party’s blog(s), article(s) or website(s) which the editorial staff feels is not or are not germane to the topic being commented on will be removed.

4) Posting spam or links to pornographic/gambling websites or other such establishments will result in an immediate ban of the commenter.

5) Comments must be germane to the topic being commented on. The editorial staff reserves the right to interpret what is and is not germane to the topic being commented on.

6) Since the Red Phoenix is the voice of a political party in the US, we do encourage and allow the posting of criticisms, counter-criticisms of articles and even commentary of our positions and articles by those we would commonly referrer to as “reactionary.”  However, the editorial staff reserves the right to only publish those comments and criticisms which it feels are politically expedient to being answered by the editors themselves or any other person of a similar political persuasion to the American Party of Labor.

7) We ask that commenters not put their email address(es), phone number(s) or any other contact information in their comment. If you would like to forward your contact information to the Red Phoenix please do so redphoenixsite (at) gmail (dot) com. If you would like to join the American Party of Labor, please visit the Party’s website and fill out the “Join” form or email the Party there.

8) We ask that commenters please try to use proper English spellings and grammar. We do not care much for net-speak “abbreviations” such as “U” and “UR.” We reserve the right to edit or delete comments on those grounds alone. If English is not your native language please try your best and if in doubt inform us of that situation.

9) The Red Phoenix will not be held liable for the comments of any commenter.

10) The editorial staff reserves the right to amend, revise or change this comment policy at any time without prior notification.

9 replies

  1. I am new to your site and am generally in sync with your understanding of the need to move forward in our understanding of the “dialectics” of social change and of understanding how to move the people forward toward a future of Socialism, to be followed by a condition of Communism.
    I have in my few recent replies to your editorial assertions, taken exception to what you have written and expressed a contrary view, that I had hoped would be responded to in a enlightened way.
    The way that the editorial board responded to my contributions to your site was to eliminate my post from your site without comment or explanation.
    The post that I had recently written that can no longer be found on your site is a post that was in opposition to “DOGMA” that I understand is a concept that is antithetical to my understanding of SCIENCE and DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM!
    My argument was against the dogmatic mechanical acceptance of the concept of revising formerly held views, (“REVISIONISM”) as automatically being against “Marxism.”
    CARL MARX was not a MARXIST! He was a STUDENT OF MARXISM!
    I would appreciate a response also to my assertion that “PHILOSOPHY” is not objective but is subjective, and that Marxism is objective and is a science. It is not a subjective philosophy.

    • “The way that the editorial board responded to my contributions to your site was to eliminate my post from your site without comment or explanation. “

      Mr. “Despicable”:

      It is clearly stated in the comment policy that the editorial staff has the right to edit, revise, delete or not publish any comment for any reason. The decision of the editorial staff is final on this matter. Your comments have been deleted, and they no longer exist. They will not be returned to you and they cannot be returned to you.

      “I have in my few recent replies to your editorial assertions, taken exception to what you have written and expressed a contrary view, that I had hoped would be responded to in a enlightened way “

      The Red Phoenix is the main public organ of a political party—the American Party of Labor—as such it is not a blog for discussion. While we do allow for discussion in the comments section, this is a privilege and not a right. It is the feeling of the editorial staff that these comments were not politically actionable.

      “The post that I had recently written that can no longer be found on your site is a post that was in opposition to “DOGMA”[…] “

      That you would call any piece we wrote as dogma in and of itself demonstrates that you have not read the piece in question. The American Party of Labor does not publish dogma of any sort. If our positions are in complete alignment with the writings of Karl Marx, Fredrick Engels, Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, and Enver Hoxha it is because their writings are still relevant. Indeed given that dialectics itself is little changed, and the fundamentals of capitalism are likewise little changed the Ideology of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin and Hoxha are still very relevant to the American Working Class.

      To publish any line but those lines, which are in line with the material conditions of the United States and the works of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin and Hoxha would be revisionism. This of course is not to say that our ideology is frozen in that mold. The American Party of Labor has taken different stances on different issues from the “Big Five” on a number of areas—mainly due to the fact that conditions in the United States are different, or due to recent scientific developments and advancements.

      “My argument was against the dogmatic mechanical acceptance of the concept of revising formerly held views, (“REVISIONISM”) as automatically being against “Marxism.” “

      Then your concept itself is incorrect.

      Revisionism is nothing more or less than the revision of either formerly held views, or changes in the ideological line of a party that has no relations to the individual conditions in a given country at a given time, or due to advancements in scientific knowledge for the express purpose of weakening the revolutionary content of Marxism-Leninism.

      We suggest that you read Enver Hoxha’s works on the subject.

      “CARL MARX was not a MARXIST! He was a STUDENT OF MARXISM! “

      First and foremost the correct spelling of Marx’s given name is Karl not Carl.

      Second, Karl Marx was neither a Marxist, nor was he a “Student of Marxism”. This should be self-evident that the ideology (ies) based off of his body of works are called Marxism and not some other name. In short Karl Marx was no more a “student of Marxism” than Albert Einstein would be a “student of relativity”. Rather Karl Marx created the basis of the ideology, he was in short the ideological father of Lenin, Stalin and Hoxha.

      “I would appreciate a response also to my assertion that “PHILOSOPHY” is not objective but is subjective, and that Marxism is objective and is a science. It is not a subjective philosophy. “

      The role of the Red Phoenix is to disseminate correct ideology, news, and opinion to the American Working Class from its Vanguard Party—the American Party of Labor. We are not in the business to appealing to your petty whims unless those whims also coincide with our over all mission.

      That being said the word Philosophy would be an appropriate word for dialectics. Indeed its creation is based on the works of the Philosopher Hegel.

      Further, dialectics dictates that all information is essentially subjective after it has been interpreted by a human mind. Materialism it is true, holds that reality does exist independent of human interpretation, however, the interpretation itself is subjective because it must be interpreted by a human being. Over all Marxist-Leninists, and the Cadres of the American Party of Labor in particular try to limit the amount of subjective material in their interpretation, however, as a consequence of the process of interpretation itself there remains some subjectivity.

  2. KINSER,

    I am going to state what my view is with regard to my understanding of the correct way to inter-pit the meaning of Dialectical Materialism. I am aware that your understanding is what has been regarded as correct by most Marxists, but I choose to take a different view!

    I have always maintained that Marxism is a way to understand the way society changes “SCIENTIFICALLY!” My understanding of the “Scientific Method.” is that SCIENTISTS do not believe! They either “KNOW or they DO NOT KNOW!” That “belief” is the absence of knowing, and that is why believers must rely on faith to eliminate doubt from what they believe in. Scientists do not have to have faith, because their understanding is determined by “EVIDENCE” and the more verifiable evidence that the scientists have, the more probability that the findings of those that use the scientific method is correct.

    Philosophy is the product of a philosophers abstract thinking. It is primarily not based on the discovery of evidence, but is the inner workings of the philosophers brain. It is SUBJECTIVE NOT OBJECTIVE!

    You have said that “DIALECTICS is based on the “PHILOSOPHY of Hegel! But what MARX did with the philosophy of Hegel, was to turn his philosophy on it’s head and turn it into it’s opposite of what it formerly was. Marx turned Hegel’s “Dialectic,” from a subjective Metaphysical philosophy of “How many angels could dance on the head of a needle,” to a objective Materialist Science that became “DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM!”
    When Hegel’s Dialectics was transformed by Karl Marx it was no longer a subjective philosophy. It became an objective SCIENCE! Qualitatively different from what it formerly was.
    All true scientists attempt to discover what is objectively true and they attempt to do so by approaching their subject matter with as much of an open mind as is humanly possible. To do otherwise would prejuidice their scientific findings and would contaminate what they were scientifically attempting to do.
    Because my understanding of Dialectical Materialism is objective and not subjective.

    I do not believe in Dialectical Materialism, because It is not an “IDEOLOGY it is a SCIENCE! A Science of understanding of what occurred in the past and what is occurring in the present and consequently what will occur in the future.
    Because it is a scientific understanding. and it is not an “IDEOLOGICAL belief, I do not believe in what events will happen in the future! … I know what events will happen in the future!

    I know that ‘Socialism will follow Capitalism and that Communism will follow Socialism!

    This is not what I believe, this is what I know!

    • “I am aware that your understanding is what has been regarded as correct by most Marxists, but I choose to take a different view!”

      Unless this different view is based on objective evidence–that is new knowledge or different conditions–then your “new understanding” must be revisionism.

      “My understanding of the “Scientific Method.” is that SCIENTISTS do not believe! They either “KNOW or they DO NOT KNOW!” “

      Then your understanding of science is extremely flawed. Scientists–including social scientists, like Marxist-Leninists–do base their theories and ideologies on the basis of observable facts, conditions, etc it is true. That said for much of science knowledge is a gray area. It isn’t as simple and mechanical as knowing or not knowing.

      Let us use the theory of evolution by means of natural selection–the basis of all modern biology for example. This theory forms the entire basis of modern biology, that said, the principle of species-ization–the changing from one spicies via evolution to a different species–has not been observed and lacks a great deal of evidence.

      Therefore the basis of that theory must be based on the SUBJECTIVE belief that the OBJECTIVE evidence indicates that it is possible over time for one species to evolve into a different species given certain physical parameters.

      As I have stated in my previous post, evidence while existing outside of the human brain is still subject to it when that evidence is interpreted. Subjectivity, is not the main end product…it is a byproduct that cannot be escaped. Much like Carbon Dioxide, Carbon Monoxide, and Hydrogen Dioxide are by products of combustion and the main product is the release of chemical energy either in motion–as in an internal combustion engine–or heat and light–as in a fire.

      “That “belief” is the absence of knowing, and that is why believers must rely on faith to eliminate doubt from what they believe in.”

      Again this is mechanical thinking. As I have demonstrated with the theory of evolution, belief can indeed be based on evidence. In fact “belief” in Marxism-Leninism as being the only socialist theory with a remote chance of producing a socialist revolution is backed by historical evidence.

      In Idealistic world views faith is what removes doubt from a belief. In a Materialistic world view it is evidence that removes doubt from a belief. However, in both cases belief remains because of the human element which cannot be removed unless it is to become a moot point.

      “Scientists do not have to have faith, because their understanding is determined by “EVIDENCE” and the more verifiable evidence that the scientists have, the more probability that the findings of those that use the scientific method is correct.”

      Incorrect. Scientists indeed must have faith. Not faith in the traditional idealistic sense–but rather faith that their methods are correct and that they are properly interpreting their evidence.

      Indeed without FAITH in their method and their evidence, the whole point becomes moot. Again, analysis of objective reality is by its very nature in some ways subjective due to the fact that the analyzer is a human being. Subjectivity is a by-product of the process of analysis–Pure Scientific and Dialectical Materialist.

      “Philosophy is the product of a philosophers abstract thinking. It is primarily not based on the discovery of evidence, but is the inner workings of the philosophers brain. It is SUBJECTIVE NOT OBJECTIVE!”

      This is an incredibly mechanical view of what Philosophy is. It is also incorrect. Not all “Philosophers” have based their philosophy on just the inner workings of their brains. Indeed Karl Marx in revolutionizing dialectics from its metaphysical base in Hegel by applying it to objective material conditions reached his conclusions not on the inner workings of his brain, but rather the inner workings of the contradictions in play on a given subject.

      Rather than philosophy being necessarily subjective, and science being necessarily objective…they are rather both and at the same time. An Idealistic philosopher–which most philosophers are I agree–puts his faith in the inner workings of his brain, a scientist in the methods that he is using be it pure scientific method based on empiricism or Dialectic Materialism are sound and correct. In both, there is an element of faith–indeed that element of faith is inescapable due to the fact that it is a human being doing the interpretation of the subject matter in question.

      “You have said that “DIALECTICS is based on the “PHILOSOPHY of Hegel!”

      Actually I only repeated what Marx said himself on the subject of Dialectical Materialism. And not only have I read the works of Marx, Engels and Lenin on the subject of dialectics I’ve read the Hegelian source material as well. I can say with absolute certainty that the dialectical process was invented by Hegel and is the basis of Dialectical Materialism–which is a derivative form.

      “But what MARX did with the philosophy of Hegel, was to turn his philosophy on it’s head and turn it into it’s opposite of what it formerly was. Marx turned Hegel’s “Dialectic,” from a subjective Metaphysical philosophy of “How many angels could dance on the head of a needle,” to a objective Materialist Science that became “DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM!””

      Actually no Marx did not turn Hegel’s dialectics on its head. Rather he applied it in a different direction. Rather than applying it to metaphysical nonsense, Marx applied the process of dialectical thinking to observable material conditions.

      “All true scientists attempt to discover what is objectively true and they attempt to do so by approaching their subject matter with as much of an open mind as is humanly possible. To do otherwise would prejuidice their scientific findings and would contaminate what they were scientifically attempting to do.”

      I agree, as does the American Party of Labor. That said, subjective contamination is inevitable due to the fact that human beings are the ones who gather the data and analyze it. From what you have stated previously in this comment and in others is that no knowledge is objective because it must lack faith–in this case faith in the correctness of the evidence and the method of analysis. With that I obviously cannot agree with because I am certain–that is I know–that scientific knowledge does exist and furthermore, have faith that the application of the empirical scientific method in the pure sciences and dialectical materialism in the social sciences must lead to the advancements of human knowledge.

      In short rather than taking a black and white view on subjectivity and objectivity, I have taken the correct and obvious view that due to the fact that humans are the ones doing the experiments or analysis on the subject matter in question some subjectivity must contaminate the findings. And further that this is going to be true no matter how hard a scientist or group of scientists tries to purge the subjectivity. Indeed it is very much like the understanding that perfectly sterile conditions are impossible to achieve in the biological field–IE microorganisms have a nasty habit of getting into where you don’t want them.

      “Because my understanding of Dialectical Materialism is objective and not subjective. “

      Your understanding of Dialectical Materialism is subjective in and of itself. Dialectic Materialism itself is a process of thought–that is it is finding the inner workings of the contradictions among a set of observable phenomena.

      “I do not believe in Dialectical Materialism, because It is not an “IDEOLOGY it is a SCIENCE!”

      Well on that I can agree because you have not applied dialectics to your own view of dialectical materialism. That said Dialectical Materialism is a process of thought–it is a method for analysis of observable sets of phenomena. As such it is both ideology and science.

      “Because it is a scientific understanding. and it is not an “IDEOLOGICAL belief, I do not believe in what events will happen in the future! … I know what events will happen in the future!”

      Actually it is impossible to know what will happen in the future. Need I remind you of what has happened in the Past first to demonstrate that even using the scientific dialectical materialist method that it is impossible to “Know” what will happen in the future? Yes I think I shall.

      Karl Marx stated on the basis of his own ideology and observations that he felt that the first nations to experience socialist revolution would be the United States, Germany or Great Britain. Did that happen? No. Which country had the first socialist revolution? Russia–which was arguably at that time at least 50 to 100 years behind the advanced Western Countries.

      Obviously since the great Karl Marx could be wrong–I have great faith that you are indeed wrong about knowing the future. At best we can conjecture what the future is most likely to be or look like using dialectics by analyzing the present and past conditions. Indeed anyone who says otherwise is at best a fool and at worst a liar.

  3. KINSER,

    You have assumed in your response to my post that I have taken a “Black and White mechanical position regarding the subject of ” Subjective” and Objective thinking.

    Nothing can be farther from the truth.

    I had stated in my post that Scientists in their quest to discover what is real and true will approach their subject matter with an open mind as much as HUMANLY possible!

    The fact that scientists are human and subject to error, does not mean that the method of objective scientific thinking and the method of subjective philosophical thinking are on the same level.

    I do not base my understanding of MARXISM on faith, but on Knowledge. I will acknowledge to you for the sake of argument that I have faith that I am correct in my assumption that Dialectical Materialism is science based and is not “Philosophical Based!

    The amount of reliability that scientists give to scientific discovery is measured by the amount of verifiable evidence that it has relative to what the scientist is examining.

    I can say that water will turn into steam under certain temperature conditions! I can also say with scientific certainty, that it will happen over and over again as long as the conditions remain somewhat the same.
    It is not FAITH or BELIEF it is SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE that leads me to this conclusion.

    I stand by my assertion that scientists using the scientific method does the business of science by not not believing, but by either KNOWING or NOT KNOWING!

    By believing and having faith of a scientific outcome before a scientific experiment begins would contaminate the experiment.

    All predictions are subject to the amount of verifiable evidence that scientists are in possession of. The more evidence the more accurate the prediction.

    It is my understanding that the HISTORY of the PAST, and what is happening in the present will lead most Marxists scientists to predict that it is a scientific possibility that a system of SOCIALISM will follow a system of Capitalism and that a system of Communism will follow a system of Socialism.

    I say it will happen because it is the only possible thing that can happen!

    If PHILOSOPHERS attempted to be objective in their thought process, they would no longer be philosophers, they would be scientists!

    Again I would like to emphasize, DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM is a SCIENCE, not a PHILOSOPHY! It may not be an EXACT SCIENCE, but it is more of a science than PHILOSOPHY!

    By placing DIALECTICAL MATERIALISTS in the same ARENA with IDEOLOGUES, it is my opinion that you do a disservice to the cause of Dialectical Materialists everywhere!
    When all other alternatives are considered.

    • “You have assumed in your response to my post that I have taken a “Black and White mechanical position regarding the subject of ” Subjective” and Objective thinking.”

      I made no such assumption. I simply read what you said and determined your method of thinking which is black and white mechanical argumentation.

      “I had stated in my post that Scientists in their quest to discover what is real and true will approach their subject matter with an open mind as much as HUMANLY possible!”

      No one here has ever argued that they did not. Your straw-person is made of straw. Rather I have argued that scientists have faith in the method that they are using–not necessarily faith in the predicted outcome of an experiment–IE the Hypothesis.

      Again you have demonstrated a severe lack in understanding the experimental method of science. The first step of which is observation, the second step of which on the basis of those observations making a hypothesis, and the final step conducting an experiment to disprove that hypothesis.

      “The fact that scientists are human and subject to error, does not mean that the method of objective scientific thinking and the method of subjective philosophical thinking are on the same level.”

      Again a straw-person. No one here has ever argued that the experimental method or dialectics were on the same level as idealistic philosophical thought. Rather that both are derived by materialist philosophical thought in their origin.

      “I do not base my understanding of MARXISM on faith, but on Knowledge.”

      And the knowledge you have demonstrated of Marxism is flawed. Perhaps, I wonder, if you spent more time reading our articles and not commenting on them you might correct your poor understanding of Marxism.

      “I have faith that I am correct in my assumption that Dialectical Materialism is science based and is not “Philosophical Based! “

      And in that faith you have already contaminated your so-called pure objective knowledge of Dialectical Materialism as a science with subjectivity.

      “The amount of reliability that scientists give to scientific discovery is measured by the amount of verifiable evidence that it has relative to what the scientist is examining.”

      Again a straw-person. No one here has ever argued to the contrary. I have been consistent that the faith aspect is in the method used, not the results themselves. Perhaps you missed that while you repeatedly hitting the exclamation point key or keeping caps lock on for cool.

      “I stand by my assertion that scientists using the scientific method does the business of science by not not believing, but by either KNOWING or NOT KNOWING! “

      You can stand by that assertion, but that does not make your argument any more correct. Science does not operate on the simple knowing or not knowing but on faith in the methods used to arrive at the objective evidence. And even so interpretation of that objective evidence still is reliant–so far as I am aware–on a human mind and therefore subject to subjectivity.

      “By believing and having faith of a scientific outcome before a scientific experiment begins would contaminate the experiment.”

      Again you demonstrate a failure to understand the experimental method. An experiment is based on a hypothesis itself based on observation to disprove the hypothesis. This is fifth grade science–perhaps before arguing with me you should read a wikipedia article or two on the experimental method.

      “All predictions are subject to the amount of verifiable evidence that scientists are in possession of. The more evidence the more accurate the prediction. “

      Scientists do not make predictions. That is the realm of prophets and mystics–which scientists are not. Rather they make hypotheses on the basis of observation and experiment.

      “It is my understanding that the HISTORY of the PAST”

      As opposed to the “History of the Future”–which of course has not happened yet and is therefore not yet history.

      “and what is happening in the present will lead most Marxists scientists to predict that it is a scientific possibility that a system of SOCIALISM will follow a system of Capitalism and that a system of Communism will follow a system of Socialism. “

      No one here has argued that this would not be the case. What we can indeed argue over is the form it will take–which of course is subject to conditions and outcomes many if not most of which are beyond the control of any Marxist.

      “I say it will happen because it is the only possible thing that can happen! “

      Actually that has not been the case so far. In the Soviet Union socialism was constructed from 1917-1956 (or thereabouts–there is debate over when the Khrushchevites managed to significantly change the social conditions from socialism to state-capitalism). And yet there was revisionism, counter-revolution and the restoration of capitalism.

      The conditions of capitalist restoration in the Soviet Union were internal in origin. That is to say that opportunism and revisionism first weakened the mass political education and furthermore, revisionists and opportunists used governmental power to transform the social property relations. Giving rise first to state-capitalism and then later private capitalism.

      In Socialist Albania the socialist order was not followed by communism. However, in Albania the conditions were vastly different. In this case socialism was overthrown from without by means of foreign operatives using Yugoslavia as a base to fund and succor the remnant bourgeoisie in their counter-revolution. And also the revisionist leadership of Alia did not help.

      “By placing DIALECTICAL MATERIALISTS in the same ARENA with IDEOLOGUES, it is my opinion that you do a disservice to the cause of Dialectical Materialists everywhere!”

      In your SUBJECTIVE OPINION. I’m sure it is. However, this organ and the American Party of Labor cares little about your subjective opinion.

  4. Why did you remove my comment on “Fascism: origins and ideology?
    I don’t think I broke any of these rules.
    I don’t have what I exactly wrote but I was must saying that the WPK adheres to all your defining qualities of Fascism other then the one about male Chauvanism and imperialism and territorial expansion (not including the reunification of the Corean peninsula).
    I mean.
    “Fascism claims to be anti-liberal; anti-conservative and anti-communist.” – I’ll give you this one but claims are just claims.
    “Fascism claims to be a ‘Third Way,’ rejecting both capitalism and communism.” – Again, it is clearly pro-Communist but it is definitely revisionary of theoretical marxism, no?
    “Fascism strives to establish a nationalist, authoritarian regime.” – you could say that the WPK strives to achieve the worker’s state after the dictatorship of the proletariat is deemed unnecessary, but the DPRK IS nationalist and it IS authoritarian.
    “Fascism rejects the idea of class struggle, offering nationalism in its place. The idea of melding labor and management into a nationalist whole is variously termed, in fascist terminology, National Corporatism (the Corporate State), National Socialism, or National Syndicalism.” – yes, this is clear
    “Fascism rejects reason and rationality, and embraces irrationalism and romanticism. As such, fascism makes extensive use of symbols, emblems, and uniforms.” – That’s just like, your opinion maaan, and this could be attributed to North Korea too
    “Fascism encourages the total militarization of society and espouses a philosophy of ‘romantic violence.’” – like North Korea?
    “Fascism creates private paramilitary militias” – so if a Fascist movement didn’t it wouldn’t be fascist, if the SA never existed would the NSDAP not be NS?
    “Fascism sees itself as a movement of the young, emphasizing energy, health, vitality and generational conflict.” – Allot of Nazi propaganda talked about respect for ones elders, same with Italian, it’s embedded in all cultures, I can’t name a single fascist movement that challenged this.
    “Fascism promotes a charismatic, personalist, dictatorial style of leadership; with the leader worshipped as a god-like figure.” – …

    • Your first comment was a non-sequitur, made to attack us for not attacking and categorizing the DPRK as fascist. We preferred not to have such a comment on our work on fascism, especially since it did not address the work in any way, shape or form. You began your dialogue with us by insisting that we whitewash and support fascism by not loudly shouting “Kim Jong-Il is Hitler” or some other such nonsense when the bourgeois media is already doing that 24/7. This does not show a serious attitude but rather a desire to throw around labels.

      Your previous comment was a flame and a non-sequitur in the context of the article on fascism, which is why it was not approved. We at the American Party of Labor and the Red Phoenix have no intention of furnishing statements which could be used to justify an imperialist attack on the DPRK.

      As to the list itself, this list of individual characteristics does not mean that North Korea is fascist. Fascism is not a grocery list of characteristics; it is a particular word view and ideology that does not fit the realities of the DPRK.

  5. I think the red phoenix should have an associated forum. Other ML forums which were basically splits from Revleft have failed but I think one associated with this site would have a better chance at staying visible to anti-revisionists online.

    Maybe you could make a post about it and see if there is any support from your readership?

Tell us Your Thoughts

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: