Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device.
You can download and read online The Revisionist #1 file PDF Book only if you are registered here.
And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with The Revisionist #1 book.
Happy reading The Revisionist #1 Bookeveryone.
Download file Free Book PDF The Revisionist #1 at Complete PDF Library.
This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats.
Here is The CompletePDF Book Library.
It's free to register here to get Book file PDF The Revisionist #1 Pocket Guide.
New series! How far would you go to save reality? Martin Monroe is The Revisionist—a time-traveling assassin tasked with repairing our fractured timeline.
Table of contents
- The Revisionist #3
- A Reformation the Church Doesn’t Need: Answering Revisionist Pro-Gay Theology—Part I | maolupostpys.tk
- Jim Benning’s revisionist “rebuild” history doesn’t hold water
A very enjoyable debut that has a lot to offer science fiction fans. It's a bit of humor that a comic about time travel has a retro action feel in so many ways. I myself grew up on those films and it's a genre you actually don't see as much anymore, so this is a fun return to that type of story.
If you're a fan like me, this is one to check out and I think Barbiere has another hit on his hands. Though the book may be pervasively pulpy, Barbiere does an astounding job at making the reader care about certain characters very quickly. It's only the first issue, and I already found myself genuinely upset by the treatment of more than one player. But above all else, this book is pure motion. Brown's jumpy, blasty, punchy art leads you quickly into the next panel — you're right there,tearing ass through the high security prison, hot on Marty's heels.
Much of The Revisionist recalls retroaction flicks, and even the colors in Marty's communication sequences with his father wouldn't feel out of place in Eighties-eraMiami. It's a little all over the place, but that's the nature of being unstuck in time. All signs point to plots converginginto an enjoyably unholy mess by the series' end. If you like time travel stories then you might dig this one. I didn't. Maybe I've seen and read too many lately to get interested in this one or maybe it just didn't have anything interesting about it.
I can see others really liking this book though, I don't know why they would, but that's not for me to decide. It's pretty average in every column and that's what I'll pass along to you before you pick it up for a read. Mainly because "Ivar, Timewalker" hasn't been off shelves for two months, and already a new time travel noir wants to take its place as king of time travel SF in comics? Well, besides the poor timing of this comic's launch, nearly all that trepidation melted away as I read this first issue. The script is concise, the pacing whipsmart, the panels clear and uncluttered, and the story refreshingly simple for one of these big, ambitious conceits.
All that said, the cliffhanger felt standard, and quite a few panels f eatured some shoddy line work on character models. But those gripes aside, I feel much more confident in pulling this series and seeing where it might go. Prev Series Next. Comicosity - Nikki Sherman Jun 1, The example of the dictatorship of the proletariat which our comrades advance is, to speak frankly, silly.
It is a correct position which is held by the entire communist movement. On the other hand, opposition to Principle 18 is an incorrect position and all of the many organizations which have broken with ultra-leftism sufficiently to recognize the existence of a relatively consolidated ultra-left trend and have decided to take the path of attempting to consolidate a new Marxist-Leninist trend, only a handful dispute the correctness of Principle And virtually all of the many groups in the ultra-left trend staunchly oppose Principle What sense can it make to anyone but an academician to compare this to the question of the dictatorship of the proletariat?
It seems as if our comrades are grasping at straws. In the first place, it is clear that the CLP is hardly in the mainstream of the ultra-left trend. Secondly, it should be clear that in discussing a trend, the example of one group, which also distinguishes itself in other ways, is hardly significant. Lenin said, with reference to those who held up this or that isolated example in an attempt to obscure the relationship between the social-chauvinism that had developed within the Second International and the right opportunist trend within it, that:.
Those who refuse to see the closest and unbreakable link, between social-chauvinism and opportunism clutch at individual instances — this opportunist or another, they say, has turned internationalist; this radical or another has turned chauvinist. But his kind of argument carries no weight as far as the development of trends is concerned.
Once they accomplished this, their understanding of the ultra-left character of opposition to Principle 18 would follow easily. They agree that:. Exaggerating the importance of the CP[USA] and the struggle against it has been a hallmark of the ultra-left line in our movement. But our comrades fail to provide any explanation for why the OL arrived at such an isolating and destructive policy. There is a simple explanation. And we should be clear that, in this case, it is not simply a question of correct international policy of the CPC incorrectly applied by the OL in the US. Of course, this is a partial explanation.
Nevertheless, it is an important aspect of an all-sided explanation. And, in practice, it not only harmed the anti-imperialist struggle but led to a severe setback for the struggle against revisionism. The CPC justified their sectarianism toward the SU within the anti-imperialist movement with typical ultra-left arguments. Firstly, they correctly cited the ideological antagonism between Marxism-Leninism and revisionism.
The Revisionist #3
But it is a typical ultra-left error to demand ideological unity as a precondition for united action. Would any of the great united fronts which have made communist history have succeeded if ideological unity had been demanded? It would help them to hoodwink the Soviet people.
But, as practice demonstrated, it only discredited anti-revisionism, raised the stock of revisionism, and began the isolation of China from the anti-imperialist movement which we see today. To substantiate this charge, the CPC reviews their correct critique of revisionism — its conciliation with imperialism, its strong tendency towards compromise, negotiations, and peaceful solutions—and concludes that the SU was an enemy of the Vietnamese people.
The ultra-leftism of this was to take an analysis which demonstrated only the vacillating and wavering character of revisionism with respect to the anti-imperialist struggle and conclude that the SU was an enemy. The material contribution which the SU made to the Vietnamese struggle was, as everyone knows, enormous.
And the leaders of the Vietnamese struggle were unanimous that the SU was a firm ally of the Vietnamese people. But this is absurd. Consider our struggle against the US ruling class. It is a fundamental Marxist-Leninist principle that this struggle also is a sham and a humbug unless it is inseparably bound up with the struggle against reformism. But does this mean that the struggle against reformism should be identified with the struggle against the ruling class?
Certainly not. Should the struggle against reformist movements in the trade unions be conducted in the same manner as a struggle against the ruling class? Our delegation insisted on the view of the Party of Labor of Albania that not only should the anti-imperialist front not include the Soviet revisionist, but, at the same time, it should spearhead its struggle both against imperialism in general, and US imperialism in particular, as well as against Soviet revisionism. What clearer example could one ask for of dogmatism in the service of ultra-leftism?
The PLA did not base itself on an objective assessment of the concrete forces at work, as the CPC was still able to do, but on an appeal to Lenin. Refusal to take joint action against imperialism is not an attitude of truly opposing revisionism and defending the purity of Marxism-Leninism, To refuse to take anti-imperialist united action means divorcing oneself from the masses and going in for isolationism; in fact, it will only bring about the serious consequences of undermining the anti-imperialist struggle.
The history of the international communist movement knows of many instances of the Communists taking joint action with the right-wing Social Democrats in the struggle against imperialistic wars. Practice is the yardstick that tells right from wrong. Opportunism also can be overcome in the practical revolutionary struggle as well as in the ideological struggle.
In realizing joint action, Communists must always adhere to the principles of uniting while struggling and of struggling while uniting. The joint action we advocate does not mean unconditional unity or unprincipled compromises. What we mean is to take concerted action and joint efforts with anti-imperialist forces in opposing US imperialism and supporting the Vietnamese people, while abiding by Marxist-Leninist principles.
In this way we should, in the course of our joint struggle, criticize and overcome the opportunist elements, support and encourage the anti-imperialist elements. We consider that anti-imperialist joint action by no means conflicts with the struggle against revisionism. Rather, it is a positive form of struggle against opportunism of all hues.
This is not the place to enter into an extensive discussion of the main danger to party building. Suppose two groups come to a meeting.
A Reformation the Church Doesn’t Need: Answering Revisionist Pro-Gay Theology—Part I | maolupostpys.tk
Both hold that the movement has consolidated an ultra-left line and that a thoroughgoing campaign of rectification must be waged at all levels. One, however, thinks that the rectification campaign should be directed at the dogmatism which is employed to justify the line while the other thinks that it should be directed at the sectarian methods which are used to organize the movement.
At the meeting they strike a compromise and agree only that such a rectification campaign should be conducted against ultra-leftism. Has either group changed its position? But this is what our comrades say,. This is exactly what happened at the meeting in August At that meeting the Committee of Five stated that, on the basis of the level of understanding of the tendency, it would be premature to adopt a sharp formulation of the main danger and a compromise should be struck for the time being.
They also stated their intention to continue to struggle for a deeper understanding of the key role of dogmatism in generating and maintaining the ultra-left line.
Jim Benning’s revisionist “rebuild” history doesn’t hold water
And they have kept their word. While in the long run the main opportunist danger to the developing Marxist-Leninist forces is presented by modern revisionism as manifested in the CPUSA, in the present period, within the forces struggling to build a new revolutionary party, the main opportunist danger is presented by modern dogmatism. Modern dogmatism fails to apply dialectics to the US reality; it seeks to transform living science into a set of lifeless dogma.
It has failed to understand both the generalities and the particularities of the class struggle; and it has failed to see any creative tasks for Marxist-Leninists.
It is this dogmatism which provides the theoretical foundation for a political and organizational practice of ultra-leftism and sectarianism. But it went deeper and specified the main danger to the party-building movement to be the dogmatism which provides the theoretical foundation for this practice. Further discussion of the main danger question within the OC is mandated in the proposal which the OC adopted in February This demarcation itself will mark a significant step forward in consolidating an understanding of the nature of the ultra-left line.
It would appear that there are two reasons. In the first place, it is an attempt to discredit the theses by attempting to portray the SC as politically unstable and to divert attention away from the thrust of the theses. But, as we have seen, the Committee of Five and the SC which followed it have maintained a consistent line.