Reactionary Revolutionaries?

[ComradeMan]

Recently I have been involved in a lot of debate....:D

For one reason or another the subject of Ghandi came up. A comrade berated Ghandi as a racist. Certainly Ghandi did have some quite racist views. The point being I was seeking to learn from Ghandi's methods of peaceful revolution, not emulate his character.

Now, I found the following quotes from the Motorcycle Diaries:-

"The blacks, those magnificent examples of the African race who have maintained their racial purity thanks to their lack of an affinity with bathing, have seen their territory invaded by a new kind of slave: the Portuguese."

“The black is indolent and a dreamer; spending his meager wage on frivolity or drink; the European has a tradition of work and saving, which has pursued him as far as this corner of America and drives him to advance himself, even independently of his own individual aspirations.”

"The episode upset us a little because the poor man, apart from being homosexual and a first-rate bore, had been very nice to us, giving us 10 soles each, bringing our total to 479 for me and 163 1/2 to Alberto."

"The first person we hit on was the mayor, someone called Cohen; we had heard a lot about him, that he was Jewish as far as money was concerned but a good sort

Oh dear... you certainly won't find those Che quotes on a lot of sites or T-shirts. This does not mean that everything and anything Che did was invalid, but it does call into question his personality cult. He was young when he wrote these but all the same, do we now write off El Che as a wicked homophobe, racist and anti-Semite?

Now, Stalin was a notorious anti-Semite, a good read of Karl Marx and his sources begins to get very un-pc by today's standards. Fidel Castro is not exactly the number one invite on the San Francisco Pride march etc and this leaves me wondering.....

Where do we draw the line? Some people on the left seem to get a lot into personality cults and surely we must accept that important figures on the left were only human too, they had their prejudices and defects like most people have done and still do..... but where do we draw the line?

I tend to go along with the idea that we should focus on what was true and valid, acknowledge what was not and move on. I think it's important to acknowledge these things, in order not to build personality cults, but what do the other RevLefters think?

[The Red Next Door]

I don't think no one is paying attention or care about your post.

[Bud Struggle]

“The black is indolent and a dreamer; spending his meager wage on frivolity or drink; – Che Guevara


Where's my CheLives Tee shirt with that on it! :D

Seriously: break apart these ties to the past. Break apart these ties that makes us into historical objects. Leave the past and it's idols and icons.

Make Communism something new, interesting, vibrent, warm, alive, caring.

And bury Lenin.

[RGacky3]

Seriously: break apart these ties to the past. Break apart these ties that makes us into historical objects. Leave the past and it's idols and icons.

Make Communism something new, interesting, vibrent, warm, alive, caring.

And bury Lenin.

Exactly, I'd go further, to say make communism what it was and always has been. Make communism what it was to hte CNT, the IWW, the old socialist parties and so on. Bury Lenin for Gods sake.

As far as others being racist in the past? So what? Everyone is shaped by their backgrounds and everyone sometimes has wrong views about things, no one is perfect, and about Che, so what, no one looks up to him for his views on race, also, I garantee you that he was much less racist than the majority of white hispanics of his time, (and probably now).

[Chambered Word]

"The blacks, those magnificent examples of the African race who have maintained their racial purity thanks to their lack of an affinity with bathing, have seen their territory invaded by a new kind of slave: the Portuguese."

Che never bothered bathing himself. Still, sounds like something you'd hear a Stormfronter say.

Then again, weren't the diaries written before he became a Marxist?

[#FF0000]

And bury Lenin.

Why do that? I think he had some pretty valuable contributions.

[ComradeMan]

Why do that? I think he had some pretty valuable contributions.


This is a good point. He made some valid contributions but it doesn't mean we hold him up as a "patriarch", sort the wheat from the chaff is what I say.

[Belisarius]

This is a good point. He made some valid contributions but it doesn't mean we hold him up as a "patriarch", sort the wheat from the chaff is what I say.
that doesn't only count for lenin, but for everyone, even Marx should be corrected many times. lickily many marxists have already doen that (e.g. the rigid economic determinism has been replaced by a dialectic of sub- and superstructure). Marx even said it himself, "God is opium if the people", if we make someone into a god, we make him into a way of oppressing them.

[ComradeMan]

that doesn't only count for lenin, but for everyone, even Marx should be corrected many times. lickily many marxists have already doen that (e.g. the rigid economic determinism has been replaced by a dialectic of sub- and superstructure). Marx even said it himself, "God is opium if the people", if we make someone into a god, we make him into a way of oppressing them.


Religion is the opium of the people, not God.:cool:

[#FF0000]

that doesn't only count for lenin, but for everyone, even Marx should be corrected many times. lickily many marxists have already doen that (e.g. the rigid economic determinism has been replaced by a dialectic of sub- and superstructure). Marx even said it himself, "God is opium if the people", if we make someone into a god, we make him into a way of oppressing them.

I really don't think Marx was ever big on rigid economic determinism but I know what you mean.

[Bud Struggle]

Why do that? I think he had some pretty valuable contributions.

Then take his contributions and forget about paying homage to the man. And bury that stuffed skin that's lounging in Red Square.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

We don't need to import a Russian centric cult of personality but nor do we need to give a shit about it since where most people here do not come from countries were left wing cultists hold any influance (and where they do not they probably never will on the account of being substandard)

[danyboy27]

We don't need to import a Russian centric cult of personality but nor do we need to give a shit about it since where most people here do not come from countries were left wing cultists hold any influance (and where they do not they probably never will on the account of being substandard)

i second this :D

[Belisarius]

Religion is the opium of the people, not God.:cool:
i know but i thought the word "god" expressed my intentions better.

[ZeroNowhere]

that doesn't only count for lenin, but for everyone, even Marx should be corrected many times. lickily many marxists have already doen that (e.g. the rigid economic determinism has been replaced by a dialectic of sub- and superstructure). Marx even said it himself, "God is opium if the people", if we make someone into a god, we make him into a way of oppressing them.
i know but i thought the word "god" expressed my intentions better.Which is why you... Used quotation marks. Also, technically, he said, "It is the opium of the people." While it would be acceptable to substitute 'religion' for 'it', it is the summary of an argument and quoting it in isolation makes it too easy to misconstrue it, as you did above (and, incidentally, somebody does not need to be omnipotent to be correct). Anyhow, I think by 'rigid economic determinism', you were referring to Cohen and the vast majority of the 20th Century Marxist movement rather than Marx. It's easy to get them mixed up, but they are not equivalent, which is why the most important corrections to Marxism involved restating Marx (eg. Colletti and Sayer).

[RGacky3]

i know but i thought the word "god" expressed my intentions better.

Yeah, but your misquoting dumbass, you can't change someones quote just to express your intentions better.

[ComradeMan]

Hey, let's keep the discussion civil here and avoid flaming!!!!

I think you need to be careful. To me, "God" is not the same as "religion", not exactly anyway. However, Belisarius does make a point about "religious" cults of personality.

I think we are wondering off-topic here however.

My point was, if we can still learn from some like El Che, Castro, even Stalin despite their reactionary views perhaps on some issues, then perhaps we ought to be more careful about who we write off as reactionary too.

What is the take on Gandhi- bearing in mind he was operating along schools of thought that were rooted in his Hinduism and not the materialism of the times?

PS What is the correct spelling, Gandhi or Ghandi as I have found both all over the place? :confused:

:::::::::::::::

Ambedkar, B.R. "What Congress and Gandhi Have Done to the Untouchables" In The Critics of Gandhi
Dutt, Rajani Palme. "India Today". In The Critics of Gandhi . Presents a Marxist view which is quite critical.
Gandhi, M.K. The Essential Gandhi. Edited By Louis Fisher. New York: Vintage Books, 1962.
Hasan, K. Sarwar. "The Genesis of Pakistan". In The Critics of Gandhi
Savarkar, V.D. "Hindu Rashtra Darshan". In The Critics of Gandhi
Other Works Consulted
Brown, Judith M. Gandhi, Prisoner of Hope. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990.
Gandhi, M.K. The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi. New Delhi: Government of India, Publications Division, Vol. XI, 1964.
Ray, Sibnarayan. Ed. Gandhi, India and the World. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1970

[IcarusAngel]

Marx himself had racial statements that were far worse than Gandhi's. So did Engles. And Stalin imprisoned real leftists. I believe about a third of political prisoners were socialists and anarchists, maybe even more. They were the criminal element.

Proudhon was also a racist (and some of his writings are idiotic), and a few other anarchists were idiots.

Modern racism though is often from the 'Right Libertarian' movement. I have a book (just because I was interested) that was publish by a Libertarian that says races exist and that one race is better than another, and we must analyze race as an alien would analyze the human condition. He says that humans inevitably have a preference for their own group, and this is seen in nature. He creates a new theory in biology based around this "racial" view.

Rushton, Murray, Walter Block, Mises, Lew Rockwell are just a few of the supremacists in the right-wing "libertarian" movement and besides the "white nationalist" movement is where "racial studies" are often conducted.

[ComradeMan]

Marx himself had racial statements that were far worse than Gandhi's. So did Engles. And Stalin imprisoned real leftists. I believe about a third of political prisoners were socialists and anarchists, maybe even more. They were the criminal element.

Proudhon was also a racist (and some of his writings are idiotic), and a few other anarchists were idiots.

Modern racism though is often from the 'Right Libertarian' movement. I have a book (just because I was interested) that was publish by a Libertarian that says races exist and that one race is better than another, and we must analyze race as an alien would analyze the human condition. He says that humans inevitably have a preference for their own group, and this is seen in nature. He creates a new theory in biology based around this "racial" view.

Rushton, Murray, Walter Block, Mises, Lew Rockwell are just a few of the supremacists in the right-wing "libertarian" movement and besides the "white nationalist" movement is where "racial studies" are often conducted.

Yeah, all of these people were writing in un-pc times. I have no doubt some even thought it was "scientific".

I must admit I don't really know what a "rightwing libertarian" is!!!!!!

[IcarusAngel]

Doesn't matter that they were writing in "UN PC" times. There many non-racist people when Marx was alive and he should have known better. Same with the "anarchists" who should have known claiming one group is superior to another doesn't make sense based solely on racial characteristics. (you might as well divide the same "races" as there is more diversity within them than apart from them.)

The non-racists moved society forwards. Bertrand Russell was popular during "non-PC" times and when eugenics was big. He revised his own theories, though, as he often did, to reject racialist/superiority thinking, and he absolutely hated Nietzsche.

Right Libertarianism is the belief that removing all government, except for the military and the courts and the laws that protect corporations, is freedom.

Wiki has it all:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-libertarianism

[#FF0000]

Yeah, but your misquoting dumbass, you can't change someones quote just to express your intentions better.

Cool unwarranted attack. Consider this a verbal warning.

[ComradeMan]

Icarus, you are right. I am not seeking to justifying them, just give them some benefit of the doubt for being products of their times- no excuses though!!!

As for rightwing libertarianism, thanks for the link, interesting stuff.
They are completely mad!!!

So we remove governmants yet keep the two most punitive and reactionary forms of governmental/statist oppression now unchecked by any kind of legislative "brake".
Great idea! :crying:

[Skooma Addict]

As far as reactionary revolutionaries go, how about Bertrand Russell? Here is a quote from this nut job.

"Socialism, especially international socialism, is only possible as a stable system if the population is stationary or nearly so. A slow increase might be coped with by improvements in agricultural methods, but a rapid increase must in the end reduce the whole population to penury, ... the white population of the world will soon cease to increase. The Asiatic races will be longer, and the negroes still longer, before their birth rate falls sufficiently to make their numbers stable without help of war and pestilence. ... Until that happens, the benefits aimed at by socialism can only be partially realized, and the less prolific races will have to defend themselves against the more prolific by methods which are disgusting even if they are necessary."--Bertrand Russell, Prospects of Industrial Civilization

If you thought that was kooky, take a look at this.

"But bad times, you may say, are exceptional, and can be dealt with by exceptional methods. This has been more or less true during the honeymoon period of industrialism, but it will not remain true unless the increase of population can be enormously diminished. At present the population of the world is increasing at about 58,000 per diem. War, so far, has had no very great effect on this increase, which continued through each of the world wars. ... War ... has hitherto been disappointing in this respect ... but perhaps bacteriological war may prove more effective. If a Black Death could spread throughout the world once in every generation, survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full. ... The state of affairs might be somewhat unpleasant, but what of it? Really high-minded people are indifferent to happiness, especially other people's."--The Impact of Science on Society

There are plenty of other crazy things this guy has said at one point or another. It seems like should qualify as a "reactionary."

[IcarusAngel]

Neither of those quotes are crazy. The fact is that the Asian peoples (not races) have been stabalizing and the reasons why the African haven't stabalized is because of Western imperialism/capitalism.
"Each village was ordered by the authorities to collect and bring in a certain amount of rubber – as much as the men could collect and bring in by neglecting all work for their own maintenance. If they failed to bring the required amount, their women were taken away and kept as hostages in compounds or in the harems of government employees. If this method failed, native troops, many of them cannibals, were sent into the village to spread terror, if necessary by killing some of the men; but in order to prevent a waste of cartridges, they were ordered to bring one right hand for every cartridge used. If they missed, or used cartridges on big game, they cut off the hands of living people to make up the necessary number."

http://emperors-clothes.com/analysis/russell.htm

One of the largest genocides of the twentieth century was in Africa where over a million people were butchered as well. There has been much religious conflict as well. So they have suffered from Western imperialism and internal conflict, which prevents stabalization.

Any racist statements Russell had were also revised and edited after Russell changed his views. So he is a good example of someone who used his reason to reject eugenist beliefs. Also:

Responding in 1964 to a correspondent's inquiry, "Do you still consider the Negroes an inferior race, as you did when you wrote Marriage and Morals?", Russell replied:

I never held Negroes to be inherently inferior. The statement in Marriage and Morals refers to environmental conditioning. I have had it withdrawn from subsequent editions because it is clearly ambiguous.
—Bertrand Russell , letter dated 17 March 1964 in Dear Bertrand Russell... a selection of his correspondence with the general public, 1950-1968. edited by Barry Feinberg and Ronald Kasrils.(London: Allen & Unwin, 1969, p. 146)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russell's_views_on_society


So he addressed this issue specifically and said that one race was not better than another.

[IcarusAngel]

Icarus, you are right. I am not seeking to justifying them, just give them some benefit of the doubt for being products of their times- no excuses though!!!

As for rightwing libertarianism, thanks for the link, interesting stuff.
They are completely mad!!!

So we remove governmants yet keep the two most punitive and reactionary forms of governmental/statist oppression now unchecked by any kind of legislative "brake".
Great idea! :crying:

Yes.

Interestingly, I recommend Russell's "Principles of Social Reconstruction."

He points out that many of the liberals and Libertarians agree that the military must be kept in tack to protect private property, it's the private/public sector that is open for debate.

He suggests that many things today could perhaps be better run by the private sector (such as mail, which is nationalized for mere convenience) and other things could be better done by the public sector - but, the goal of society should be to attack the "trusted" institutions, such as the military, in order to bring about fundamental change. So he was always arguging against the status quo opinion at any given time.

[Skooma Addict]

Neither of those quotes are crazy. The fact is that the Asian peoples (not races) have been stabalizing and the reasons why the African haven't stabalized is because of Western imperialism/capitalism.
The quotes seem crazy to me, especially the second one. Also, here is this.

Q. Is it true or untrue that in recent years you advocated that a preventive war might be made against communism, against Soviet Russia?"

RUSSELL: It's entirely true, and I don't repent of it now. It was not inconsistent with what I think now.... There was a time, just after the last war, when the Americans had a monopoly of nuclear weapons and offered to internationalize nuclear weapons by the Baruch proposal, and I thought this an extremely generous proposal on their part, one which it would be very desirable that the world should accept; not that I advocated a nuclear war, but I did think that great pressure should be put upon Russia to accept the Baruch proposal, and I did think that if they continued to refuse it it might be necessary actually to go to war. At that time nuclear weapons existed only on one side, and therefore the odds were the Russians would have given way. I thought they would ... .

Q. Suppose they hadn't given way.

RUSSELL: I thought and hoped that the Russians would give way, but of course you can't threaten unless you're prepared to have your bluff called.

--The Future of Science, and Self-Portrait of the Author


Any racist statements Russell had were also revised and edited after Russell changed his views. So he is a good example of someone who used his reason to reject eugenist beliefs.Maybe. Although the Genocides that occurred in world war 2 were not enough to change his views. Much of his worst writing was written after WW2.


I never held Negroes to be inherently inferior. The statement in Marriage and Morals refers to environmental conditioning. I have had it withdrawn from subsequent editions because it is clearly ambiguous.
—Bertrand Russell , letter dated 17 March 1964 in Dear Bertrand Russell... a selection of his correspondence with the general public, 1950-1968. edited by Barry Feinberg and Ronald Kasrils.(London: Allen & Unwin, 1969, p. 146)It is clearly ambiguous, and it-along with many other pieces in his writing- definitely gave the impression that he was a racist. But at the very least, one thing is clear, he in no way whatsoever deserves to be remembered as some kind of humanitarian peace lover.

[ZeroNowhere]

Marx himself had racial statements that were far worse than Gandhi's.So much worse that Satan took them and hung them up in his room, and therefore they are no longer present on Earth.


PS What is the correct spelling, Gandhi or Ghandi as I have found both all over the place?I never saw 'Ghandi' until I left India, and 'Gandhi' is certainly closer to its pronunciation, 'Ghandi' sounds like an English accent or somesuch.

[ComradeMan]

Re Bertrand Russel. It's funny how people retract statements later, apologise and then say "I was never a racist". LOL!!!

[Robert]

Right Libertarianism is the belief that removing all government, except for the military and the courts and the laws that protect corporations, is freedom.

Wiki has it all:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-libertarianism (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-libertarianism)

I read that wiki entry twice. I see no reference therein to "courts" nor to "laws that protect corporations," nor to "corporations." Nor do I see any reference to the military other than that the author represents that right libertarians oppose compulsory military service.

The article does have one rather opaque reference to one author (Anthony Gregory?) who cites someone else who claims that "big business" is "a victim of the state."

So your characterization of "right libertarianism," at least insofar as Wikipedia summarizes it, is imprecise at best, and misleading at worst.

That said, I have read some Libertarian writings that emphasize the need for minimal government and laws only to protect individuals (not "corporations" per se), from fraud and violence and little else. I think that's a defensible hypothesis, though my problem is they never ever seem to explain what to do about protecting wildlife from rapacious hunters, collectors, and merchants.

Could a real "right libertarian" step forward and tell us what they think it means?

[IcarusAngel]

lol. Robert you have to apply a little logic and abstraction to the situation.

Yes, right-libertarians support capitalism. And what does capitalism entail? A military to breakup any resistence to capitalism; a judicial system to sort out disputes between corporations; and a government to protect the interests of the financial elites (their property).

Of course you, being a capitalist, see "nothing wrong" with such a society, but any historian knows that having the government tell people who can and who cannot own property very much leads to big government. The United States is technically the largest government in history, and certainly the most powerful one. Instead of the vast human potential that is wasted there, leftists believe if workers controlled their own resources, people wouldn't need to create such powerful states to protect capital interests.

Of course Libertarians will say "we stand for liberty, freedom, small government." All parties use propaganda. What they leave out is protecting a state that essentially encourages wage slavery denies freedom for the members of society, the workers, and the workers are limited in their freedom.

So from a left analysis Libertarianism is slave governance. In right-wing thinking, Libertarian is freedom.

Frankly I would like to see all right-wing free-market thinking abolished so we can get back to democratic values. Society progressed when much of the world eliminated slavery. It needs now to progress again, by eliminating the market.

[IcarusAngel]

For example, Robert, the peace activist Bertrand Russell once advocated guild socialism. Basically there would be a variety of guilds that are left free to do what they want, and these would be managed by some higher government. Russell modified the theory to allow the cooperatives to bargin with the authority that creates regulations at another forum, creating about as much "division of powers" as possible for society to continue functioning.

Why isn't that small government? It's not small government because cooperatives are unhierarchical and contain no wage slavery, which Libertarians see as "totalitarian."



--The Future of Science, and Self-Portrait of the Author

Maybe. Although the Genocides that occurred in world war 2 were not enough to change his views. Much of his worst writing was written after WW2.

Where is that quote from? I googled it and found only a Lyndon Larouche website, not any writings of Russell. I've heard the interview in which he mentions his reasoning behind any attack on Russia and it is much more complicated than presented.

Still, he modified his views on nukes and advocated abolishing all nukes, returning to his peace activist status, hence the Russell-Einstein manifesto. He opposed WWI when very few people were doing it even among the left, and brought millions into the anti-war movement throughout his life. Thus he was always a vital part of the peacement.

[Robert]

What they leave out is protecting a state that essentially encourages wage slavery denies freedom for the members of society, the workers, and the workers are limited in their freedom.We're speaking different languages. I'll never buy this "wage slavery" (as you guys understand the term) for reasons I'm sure we don't have to rehash. Yes, you have to work for yourself or for somebody else or you starve, but that's going to be a feature of any system.

We also don't agree what "freedom," means, I don't think.

We also don't agree on this "essentially encourages" business. I'll admit that it discourages, say the "freedom" to write poetry that no one wants to read, or to practice playing the theorbo (http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:grsS4YMGKMQ6mM%3Ahttp://www.christchurchwaterford.com/images/my_images/Theorbo.jpg), racket (http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:5uSGLt6ANPeLvM%3Ahttp://webspace.webring.com/people/ea/allreeds/rackett2.jpg), or sakbut (http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:r9mp5Wr6zvijPM%3Ahttp://www.jgmp.com/tbn/images/s3.gif), beautiful instruments all that unfortunately no one wants to listen to, never mind pay to hear. (There really are small societies promoting the preservation of these things, but few care, as is their right.)

[Skooma Addict]

Where is that quote from? I googled it and found only a Lyndon Larouche website, not any writings of Russell. I've heard the interview in which he mentions his reasoning behind any attack on Russia and it is much more complicated than presented.It is not in any of Russell's writings because it was a portion of an interview Russell had with BBC Radio in 1959.

Here are some more beauties.


"To deal with this problem it will be necessary to find
ways of preventing an increase in world population. If this is to be done otherwise than by wars, pestilences, and
famines, it will demand a powerful international authority.
This authority should deal out the world's food to the
various nations in proportion to their population at the
time of the establishment of the authority. If any nation
subsequently increased its population it should not on that
account receive any more food. The motive for not
increasing population would therefore be very compelling. -
What method of preventing an increase might be preferred
should be left to each state to decide."

There is Russell the humanitarian for you. If you have more children than Russell's global dictatorship would like, no big deal, your kids will just starve to death.

I mentioned this one earlier, but it is from the same piece so ill mention it again

"If a Black Death could be spread throughout the world once in every
generation survivors could procreate freely without making
the world too full."

Here is the original article. By the way, there are plenty of other absurd ideas in this piece. I recommend you read the whole thing.

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/reprint/2/4640/1307.pdf

Russell was without a doubt not a peace loving humanist. He was a nut job.

[IcarusAngel]

And it says right in the wikipage that Russell came to believe that such authorities are improbable. However, his reasoning does make sense: there is only so much food, and if a community is being irrational they should be the ones to suffer first. Furthermore, that was written before technology made it possible for us to feed the world three times over, and yet resources are used so exclusively that it prevents them from being shared with the world.

THAT is crazy.

Russell denounced all of bizarre racial theories, whereas Mises et al. never denounced their love for fascism and their belief that resources should be controlled by a dictatorship of the financial elite (hayek). That is far worse than recommending an equal distribution of resources.

[IcarusAngel]

We're speaking different languages. I'll never buy this "wage slavery" (as you guys understand the term) for reasons I'm sure we don't have to rehash. Yes, you have to work for yourself or for somebody else or you starve, but that's going to be a feature of any system.

Why should a dictatorship of a capitalist class control all the resources when they're not using the resources as effective as they could be. Everybody COULD be fed, and you have no evidence to assume that if everybody was fed no real work would get done.

John Stuart Mill proved that there was no way to calculate how much workers should be paid and that there is no right way to distribute capital. I say, put it in the hands of the community and let people, NOT corporations and and financial dictators, make their own mistakes.

The Libertarian position is essentially instead of a National Vanguard, we should have rule by financial elite. We have seen where such "laissez-faire" capitalism leads us time and time agian, so you call for regulations to fix a broken system.

[Skooma Addict]

I think that the quotes that I gave showed Russells true colors. Russell wanted a single world government that would act with dictatorial powers. He mentioned using biological terrorism for controlling population growth. Neither Mises nor Hayek were fascists. Hayek in The Road to Serfdom and Mises in Liberalism gave arguments against fascism.

[IcarusAngel]

Mises supported fascism as a better alternative to the rising social movements in Europe:

"It cannot be denied that Fascism and similar movements aiming at the establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions and that their intervention has, for the moment, saved European civilization. The merit that Fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history."

Hayek preferred a dictatorship of the financial elite.


World Governments would eliminate all nations and reduce ethnic conflicts among the peoples of the world, and eliminate nationalism. It would also create one standard so that people wouldn't fight over it. The revolution must be a world wide revolution so that is in line with Marxist thinking.

A world federation could end the existence of "nation states" which have killed more people than any other type of internatioanl system. So Russell's arguments in favor of world government are well taken.

[IcarusAngel]

I think that the quotes that I gave showed Russells true colors.

lol. Have you ever even read Russell?

What was Russell's main arguments against behaviorism, and who is the behaviorist scholar he mosted disagreed with. What psychologists did he cite to dispute beahviorism?

What were his main arguments against pragmatism?

In what way did he feel the advancements made by Bohr et al. made in atomic theory change science as a whole? What about the Einstein's relativity?

[Robert]

Why should a dictatorship of a capitalist class control all the resources when they're not using the resources as effective as they could be. Everybody COULD be fed, and you have no evidence to assume that if everybody was fed no real work would get done.Lots of loaded language there that makes debate difficult. But what the hell, right?


dictatorship of a capitalist classI don't consider the prevalence of corporate influence in the USA, which I admit is pervasive and which I dislike for cultural reasons, to constitute a "dictatorship," even metaphorically speaking. Consumers ultimately control Walmart, not the other way around. I admit that there is little pressure consumers can bring to bear on an Exxon, but that's an exception, and they're still a far cry from a dictatorship given the antitrust laws, corporate taxes, and heavy hands of the EPA, OSHA, and other organs of the state, all of which are ultimately answerable to voters.

Capitalist class ... you know what, I don't even want to argue about "class" anymore. It's pointless.


they're not using the resources as effective[ly] as they could beThat's a judgment call, and I guess yours is as good as mine or theirs. But I don't trust "the People" (Walmart customers and Enron employees, remember?) with these decisions anymore or less than I do the "capitalist class." Presumably you're talking about elected managers of worker syndicates or somesuch making the decisions, but it can't really work absent a single world authority to which all the managers are responsible. People in Afghanistan want the excess apples from Michigan and the excess cheese in Wisconsin. The Chinese want Florida oranges and Texas pecans. Now what?


you have no evidence to assume that if everybody was fed no real work would get doneLike everyone else, I am unable to prove a negative. But I really cannot blame the "capitalist class" for malnutrition (http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/global/ray.htm). Where it is worst, central and East Africa, it seems, I blame local warlords and Islamic lunatics. Try dropping off a few hundred tons of free grain at Kismayo (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8286449.stm), Somalia and see what happens.

[IcarusAngel]

Lots of loaded language there that makes debate difficult. But what the hell, right?

I don't consider the prevalence of corporate influence in the USA, which I admit is pervasive and which I dislike for cultural reasons, to constitute a "dictatorship," even metaphorically speaking. Consumers ultimately control Walmart, not the other way around.

Wal-Mart controls the economy, and hence, the consumers, not the other way around. The are so large they receive a lot of favortism from the state, such as land development. This is inevitable, in any system with large actors, such as corporations, they government will ultimately listen to the coporations rather than listen to the voices of the people. This why there is a huge democracy gap in the US where lobbists for corporations and other interests groups (like the NRA) practically write legislation, all while citizens are ignored.

Everybody has needs. When these are provided by only a handful of corporations, who derive power from their ownership, that is essentially an oppressive situation. The corporation has, by far, more bargining power than the individualism.

So not only is capitalism hierarchical and oppressive, it's collectivist and against the individual as well. The only way to fix this problem is with democratic control of production.


I admit that there is little pressure consumers can bring to bear on an Exxon, but that's an exception, and they're still a far cry from a dictatorship given the antitrust laws, corporate taxes, and heavy hands of the EPA, OSHA, and other organs of the state, all of which are ultimately answerable to voters....

Capitalist class ... you know what, I don't even want to argue about "class" anymore. It's pointless.


Not only that, the government spends more money fighting wars overseas and so on on behalf of the corporations than what the oil is even worth. The government ensures protection of the capitalist class.

I don't see how anybody could deny classes exist. There is an elite class, a middle class, most of the worker class, and a class in extreme poverty. There are further divisions that are created in a capitalistic system.


That's a judgment call, and I guess yours is as good as mine or theirs. But I don't trust "the People" (Walmart customers and Enron employees, remember?) with these decisions anymore or less than I do the "capitalist class."

Exactly. Right-wingers believe people are too stupid to run their own lives, and thus must have others (the state, the corporations, etc.) do it for them. I agree people not always make the best decisions; but everybody should at least be able to pursue their own interests without the threat of starvation given the amount of resources that exist.


Like everyone else, I am unable to prove a negative.

It isn't 'proving a negative.' You would have to show that people are really incompetent when left to govern their own lives. There is a lot of evidence that contradicts this belief but not much evidence that support it.

[Skooma Addict]

I have read many of Russells political pieces. These are the pieces that are actually relevant to the discussion.


lol. Have you ever even read Russell?

What was Russell's main arguments against behaviorism, and who is the behaviorist scholar he mosted disagreed with. What psychologists did he cite to dispute beahviorism?Well considering that behaviorism was disproved before Russell wrote on the topic, I really see no need in reading Russell on a doctrine that has been refuted to death.


What were his main arguments against pragmatism?

In what way did he feel the advancements made by Bohr et al. made in atomic theory change science as a whole? What about the Einstein's relativity?No because I already have read enough on pragmatism, and no because I do not care what Russell's opinions were on Einstiens theory of relativity were. I see no reason whatsoever to read Russell at the moment. I would take Quine, Kuhn, and Popper over Russell any day.

[IcarusAngel]

This shows you have absolutely no idea of what you're talking about, no chronological history, and no knowledge of philosophy whatsoever.

Russell wrote on behaviorism in the 1920s and 1930s. Behaviorism was a dominant school of psychology then. It wasn't discredited until Noam Chomsky et al. showed the fundamental flaws of treating humans as instruments or objects (a lot of which may have came from Russell's own writing), and the fact that much research shows that many human properties are innate.

On pragmatism, Russell offered the best arguments against it available (pragmatism is still taught in Universities by the way, certainly it is more popular than Libertarian philosophy to this day). It still has some uses given its scientific approach to problems.

There isn't much difference between Quine and Russell when it comes to logic etc. We've already discussed this. But your unfamiliarity with whole areas of philosophy has now clearly come out; certainly you couldn't understand how logic developed without understanding Russell's contributions, which Quine himself discusses quite often.

[Robert]

I don't see how anybody could deny classes exist.

I don't deny they "exist." I deny that they are impermeable. I deny that they are invariably oppressive. I deny that the term has much utility except in the context of class struggle, which is itself as obsolete as the crossbow and vihuela.


Wal-Mart controls the economy, and hence, the consumers, not the other way around.

I'll meet you halfway on this one; in small communities whose hardware stores and pharmacies have had to close, Walmart does rule. But it's unfortunately a more efficient business model than what it supplanted. And you have to admit the people you want to liberate love it. Sorry, it's a fact. I don't go to Walmart when I can avoid it b/c I'm a snob, but I have alternatives. Like Target!:lol: Seriously, I do go to Target and like it fine.


Right-wingers believe people are too stupid to run their own lives, and thus must have others (the state, the corporations, etc.) do it for them.

I hate to break this to you, but right wingers as I define it don't spend much time theorizing about what the People need, and you know that the left is far more guilty of this kind of elitism.


I agree people not always make the best decisions; but everybody should at least be able to pursue their own interests without the threat of starvation given the amount of resources that exist.

If you mean full time pursuit of whatever floats their boat, then we'll just have to disagree on that. You can pursue your painting or microbrewery as a hobby. I happen to be a "good" musician. But I'm a dilettante, not a pro. I'm not a pro because I just ain't good enough. So I can't make a living at it; the reasons are market based, a cold way of saying the community has greater need for me to be doing something else. It would be wrong for me to "do my thing" at will and expect the community to keep me fed and clothed in return. And we haven't even gotten deep in the weeds on this stuff, as in, how many figs, bottle of champagne and camembert cheeses am I entitled to in exchange for playing songs that only a handful of people like? How often do I have to play, etc? The market answers those questions to my personal satisfaction.


You would have to show that people are really incompetent when left to govern their own lives

I'll stipulate that they are competent if you'll stipulate that they tend to vote Republicrat instead of Green or Communist. Shall we respect their will or not?

[Skooma Addict]

This shows you have absolutely no idea of what you're talking about, no chronological history, and no knowledge of philosophy whatsoever.

Russell wrote on behaviorism in the 1920s and 1930s. Behaviorism was a dominant school of psychology then. It wasn't discredited until Noam Chomsky et al. showed the fundamental flaws of treating humans as instruments or objects (a lot of which may have came from Russell's own writing), and the fact that much research shows that many human properties are innate.

On pragmatism, Russell offered the best arguments against it available (pragmatism is still taught in Universities by the way, certainly it is more popular than Libertarian philosophy to this day). It still has some uses given its scientific approach to problems.

There isn't much difference between Quine and Russell when it comes to logic etc. We've already discussed this. But your unfamiliarity with whole areas of philosophy has now clearly come out; certainly you couldn't understand how logic developed without understanding Russell's contributions, which Quine himself discusses quite often.I think this is all a red herring. You are driving the conversation away from what it was before because you know that Russell had insane political views.

No, Behaviorism was critiqued before Russell. Even though it wasn't completely refuted until Putnam and Popper destroyed the doctrine.

True, there isn't much difference between Quine and Russell, but there is a difference. Everything they agreed on was elaborated and better explained by Quine. Since I have read Quine, I don't see much of a need to read Russell at the moment.

[IcarusAngel]

lol. Behaviorism was not 'refuted' in the 1920s. And I already said I agree with Russell's principles: there should be an elimination of war, and resources should be controlled by the public. I think a world confederation or world government would be better than nation states. As for population control, the way to achieve balanced populations is with education, birth control, and so on. The Libertarian principle of not providing these measures to third world countries, such as during Reagan, led to population explotions with societies that couldn't do with them. Every time we see starving children we should think of Libertarianism and unequal distribution of resources. Even many capitalists, such as Sen, Dreze, etc., blame corrupt landlords and politicians for the problem.

Furthermore, Russell's analysis of capital and power is purely anarchistic; that is, people with property come to dominate the resources in society. if you knew anything about political philosophy you'd know that these influences come from: anarchists, classical-liberals who were not capitalists (such as von Humboldt, Rousseau, and others who blamed the sins of society on property owners) and not Marxist.

[Skooma Addict]

lol. Behaviorism was not 'refuted' in the 1920s. And I already said I agree with Russell's principles: there should be an elimination of war, and resources should be controlled by the public. I think a world confederation or world government would be better than nation states. As for population control, the way to achieve balanced populations is with education, birth control, and so on. The Libertarian principle of not providing these measures to third world countries, such as during Reagan, led to population explotions with societies that couldn't do with them. Every time we see starving children we should think of Libertarianism and unequal distribution of resources. Even many capitalists, such as Sen, Dreze, etc., blame corrupt landlords and politicians for the problem.

Furthermore, Russell's analysis of capital and power is purely anarchistic; that is, people with property come to dominate the resources in society. if you knew anything about political philosophy you'd know that these influences come from: anarchists, classical-liberals who were not capitalists (such as von Humboldt, Rousseau, and others who blamed the sins of society on property owners) and not Marxist.

Behaviorism, in my opinion, was not fully refuted until Popper and Putnam came along. There were good arguments made before that. If you agree with Russell's principles, then you think there should be a single world government with dictatorial powers. I question how anti-war Russell really was. Russell mentioned Biological Terrorism as a way to control population growth. He wanted to have the global government starve peoples children to death if they had too many kids. He also made remarks that you would consider as racist if a libertarian or conservative had said them.

You change the subject, and then say I don't know anything about the subject before I even comment on it. I have read Rousseau.

This discussion however has completely changed course in the wrong direction. The fact is that I provided many quotes which showed some of Russells crazy and evil beliefs.

[IcarusAngel]

The refutations of behaviorism came from the cognitive revolution. Popper had absolutely nothing to do with it. His arguments came later. One of the key players of the cognitive revolution was Chomsky, who was also influenced by Russell's writings on language, just as Quine was influenced by Russell's work on logic.

You citing people having "crazy beliefs" is a bit hilarious considering you support people such as Mises who favored fascism over social democracy and rejected the scientific method, who had no training in logic and mathematics and who has been discredited.

Yes, I think nation states have failed. That is clear. The crimes of nation states have been far worse than any other type of international system. Even many IR scholars reject it now; just look up world federalism.

[Skooma Addict]

The refutations of behaviorism came from the cognitive revolution. Popper had absolutely nothing to do with it. His arguments came later.
I know, but I like Poppers and Putnams better for the 20th time.


You citing people having "crazy beliefs" is a bit hilarious considering you support people such as Mises who favored fascism over social democracy and rejected the scientific method, who had no training in logic and mathematics and who has been discredited.Look, he advocated starving people to death if they had more kids than the global dictatorship wanted, he mentioned biological terrorism as a way to control population figures, and he advocated a massive war with the U.S.S.R. Mises did not favor fascism over democracy. How many times do I need to say that? Mises had training in mathematics and logic, and since you don't understand his methodology, I suggest you read this.

http://www.peterleeson.com/Was_Mises_Right.pdf

[RGacky3]

I don't deny they "exist." I deny that they are impermeable. I deny that they are invariably oppressive. I deny that the term has much utility except in the context of class struggle, which is itself as obsolete as the crossbow and vihuela.


It has utility in that it describes those who control the economy and those who run it. Also how is class struggle obsolete? There still is one class that controls and one class that does not.


I'll meet you halfway on this one; in small communities whose hardware stores and pharmacies have had to close, Walmart does rule. But it's unfortunately a more efficient business model than what it supplanted. And you have to admit the people you want to liberate love it. Sorry, it's a fact. I don't go to Walmart when I can avoid it b/c I'm a snob, but I have alternatives. Like Target!:lol: Seriously, I do go to Target and like it fine.

Well in the big scheme of things its not more efficient, because its putting into poverty all the people that are supposed to be their consumers, we are seeing that now. (i'm not talking about walmart specifically but that ultra-capitalist buisiness model).


the reasons are market based, a cold way of saying the community has greater need for me to be doing something else.

Not the community, the people iwth money, the market is'nt controlled by the community its controlled by money, of which a very very very tiny percent of the population control a very large percent.


It would be wrong for me to "do my thing" at will and expect the community to keep me fed and clothed in return. And we haven't even gotten deep in the weeds on this stuff, as in, how many figs, bottle of champagne and camembert cheeses am I entitled to in exchange for playing songs that only a handful of people like? How often do I have to play, etc? The market answers those questions to my personal satisfaction.


Your trying to describe a communist society using capitalist principles, you can't do that, its a different thing.