Anarch(ism)y, Commun(ism?)ization, and the Liberal Project

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

So, what's the deal - are we aiming to fulfill the promise of the French Revolution? Are our goals grounded in promises of rationalism, modernism, and science? Is "the revolution" simply the realization of authentic democracy - of "Liberty, Fraternity, Equality"?
I am personally of the opinion that all of this needs to be unpacked and problematized: I think insofar as the communist project imagines itself as the "true" putting-into-practice of the ideals of bourgeois revolution, the end result, will, inevitably, be just that.
Is this liberal baggage inescapable? Can we imagine-otherwise, outside of the dominant narratives of "revolution" and the notions of freedom that currently exist? Is it possible to answer, "What would a practice of communization look like without liberal values?"

Happy to hear y'alls thoughts.

[NGNM85]

So, what's the deal - are we aiming to fulfill the promise of the French Revolution? Are our goals grounded in promises of rationalism, modernism, and science? Is "the revolution" simply the realization of authentic democracy - of "Liberty, Fraternity, Equality"?
I am personally of the opinion that all of this needs to be unpacked and problematized: I think insofar as the communist project imagines itself as the "true" putting-into-practice of the ideals of bourgeois revolution, the end result, will, inevitably, be just that.
Is this liberal baggage inescapable? Can we imagine-otherwise, outside of the dominant narratives of "revolution" and the notions of freedom that currently exist? Is it possible to answer, "What would a practice of communization look like without liberal values?"

Happy to hear y'alls thoughts.

I doubt you'd like to hear mine.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Instead of Liberté there should be emancipation, and instead of Fraternité there should be solidarity.

What should replace Egalité is the harder question.

[black magick hustla]

the old civilization will crumble:


Communists have no codified constitutions to propose. They have a world of lies and constitutions - crystallised in the law and in the force of the dominant class - to crush. They know that only a revolutionary and totalitarian apparatus of force and power, which excludes no means, will be able to prevent the infamous relics of a barbarous epoch from rising again - only it will be able to prevent the monster of social privilege, craving for revenge and servitude, from raising its head again and hurling for the thousandth time its deceitful cry of Freedom!

[Die Neue Zeit]

Where did you get that quote? Also, there was at least one codified constitution: the Soviet constitution of 1918.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I doubt you'd like to hear mine.

I would if you could actually address the questions in a way that was interesting and not simply a boring statement of ". . . but I like liberal values!"

Given, that was a shot, but seriously, if you could contribute something other than the same affirmation of the wonders of science/progress/democracy/etc. that is available from any defender of the existent, I'd love to hear it. Zizek, for example, at least offers an interesting (if, in my opinion, ultimately flawed) take on the question in Living In The End Times.

Maybe you should go read that, or like, some real contemporary theory, and try again when you don't sound like you live at the start of the last century.

[black magick hustla]

its p. funny when folks rail on about "u dont know what r u talking bout read these irrelevant ppl that exist in boring critical theory english depts and sociology depts". its pretty damn patronizing and nobody cares that you can namedrop derrida in a coffee shop

[Red Commissar]

Where did you get that quote? Also, there was at least one codified constitution: the Soviet constitution of 1918.

A search on google shows it is contained on one of Bordiga's writings on Marxists.org (Proletarian Dictatorship and Class Party (http://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1951/class-party.htm))

[NGNM85]

I would if you could actually address the questions in a way that was interesting and not simply a boring statement of ". . . but I like liberal values!"

Since you brought it up I have yet to hear anything interesting come out of you. You haven’t contributed anything valuable, just empty denunciations of what you are, supposedly, against, without any elaboration or explanation. You haven't even come close to constructing a prima facie case against science, democracy, rationalism, etc.

Second, I’m not convinced you are qualified to discern what Liberal values are, let alone judge them.

Third, yes, I totally stand by the concepts of science and democracy. Guilty as charged.


Given, that was a shot, but seriously, if you could contribute something other than the same affirmation of the wonders of science/progress/democracy/etc. that is available from any defender of the existent, I'd love to hear it. Zizek, for example, at least offers an interesting (if, in my opinion, ultimately flawed) take on the question in Living In The End Times.

This is a bogus argument. What are your ‘new’ ideas on gravity? Or evolution? These are not new concepts, but, again, they have lasted for a reason, because they are demonstratably true and have a proven utility. They meet the burden of evidence. ‘Old’ does not mean ‘bad.’ Many things from the past have been discarded, like human sacrifice, or alchemy, however, this is because they could not stand the test of time, there were obvious reasons to abandon these ideas.


Maybe you should go read that, or like, some real contemporary theory, and try again when you don't sound like you live at the start of the last century.

‘Yeah, like, democracy and science are, like, sooo last year, maaan.’ I’m sure this rhetoric is fascinating when you’re hanging out in coffee shops discussing deconstructionism or some such bullshit, but I am, frankly, unimpressed. Unless you have some brilliant insight that totally undermines these ideas, feel free to share, my guess is this is just vacuous bullshit. It isn’t even shallow.

[YouSSR]

Communism has to be based on dialectical materialism, which is fundamentally based on Hegel rather than Locke, Rouseau, etc and even more is fundamentally based on Plato rather than Aristotle. Of course you'll never learn about different modes of thought in the west simply because acknowledging Marxism as a school of thought is too dangerous. Take a class on philosophy, unless it's very high level you basically stop at the enlightenment and either go to the modern day or talk about Nietzsche and Heidegger while completely ignoring Hegel/Marx.

It's extremely difficult for most people to imagine because the propaganda is so pervasive in the west, but enlightenment ideals are mostly garbage and a causal, falsifiability based method of logic is not only incorrect, it's only recently it was accepted as the norm of science.

To really rub it in, Karl Popper conceived of the modern scientific method specifically because he hated Marx and any communist who buys into western logic and values uncritically is falling right into the most clever of all capitalist traps.

[YouSSR]

‘Yeah, like, democracy and science are, like, sooo last year, maaan.’ I’m sure this rhetoric is fascinating when you’re hanging out in coffee shops discussing deconstructionism or some such bullshit, but I am, frankly, unimpressed. Unless you have some brilliant insight that totally undermines these ideas, feel free to share, my guess is this is just vacuous bullshit. It isn’t even shallow.


Nice ignorant arrogance but if you're not interested in learning why are you here? As for your statements do you defend the right to property? The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are all based on this right in the conception of liberalism. The right to your body is the right to property, as was explicitly put by the supreme court in Roe V Wade. The right to liberty is the right to freedom of the press, freedom to vote, freedom of speech, etc all of which are quite obviously warped by the power of capital to the point of uselessness. The right to happiness really means the right to pursue economic freedom, which really means the right to capital.

Of course Jefferson was a pretty cool guy, and saw the dangers of capitalism warping and destroying his agricultural utopian vision. I've read the Louisiana purchase was a last ditch attempt by him to save America from capitalism, as the east coast was already lost by the time he became president.

[DavidX]

As much as I have a problem with the academy and derrida and the like, I am going to continue to defend them from leftists who are so ready to ignore an entire century's worth of leftist thought on contemporary problems and issues.

Marx had a lot to say about capital and it's eventual collapse but he did not have much to say about how to form a new communist society, hence the real world applications of lenin, mao and the like. many serious and committed marxists today agree that the endemic problem of the left is that it does not even have a idea about contemporary capitalism, that they have not truely engaged with the historical failure of marxist-leninism, that they do not know how belief and ideology function today, and do not taking the the serious variety of new problems that have arisen. Marx does not account for the concern that severe ecological disasters are of immediate concern today, and that capitalism is not going to have time to "phase itself out" before the earth becomes practically uninhabitable, and so on

The engagement of the academic left was to try and find radical new ways of understanding these problems and the relative merits of the theories is always up for debate, but to outright dismiss them is total ignorance on the part of anyone who calls themselves a serious leftist.

In academia, most traditions pass through marxism, anthropology, geo, history, literature etc, and the names of popular philosophers are often flags, as much as theorists, waved by people that trying to explore a body of logic and criticism that exists outside the framework of liberal democratic capitalism. To problematize liberal democracy is not only a project of current theory, but has been the subject for two hundred years in leftist thought.

~~
There is always alot of anger, there are always egos, half educated people, with good intentions, and alot of pent up frustration. there is alot out there to learn, which neither theory as an institution, nor "non-academic" marxism yet understands- and it is difficult. In the academy there are name droppers in undergraduate lectures, and there sure there are obscurists in english literature journals, but more so is there serious committed engagement if you bothered to look.

~~
The doctrines of rationalism, modernism, and science have proved largely inadequate for leftist ideals and thought. for example, that science today addresses cosmetic medicine, millitary science, and cryptography in the service of capital today says alot about science as an insitution, and nobody would argue that this does not need rethinking.

alot of the effort of the left today is to think how reclaim these fields for a communist project, general human advancement etc. nobody is going to reject rationalism outright purely as an academic game. rather, they are going to challenge how they have been misappropriated, misused, challenge reactionary half-thinking and blind convictions about how the world has to work according to a set of dogmas, etc.

~~
"But fuck deconstruction and fuck derrida?" If these knee jerk reactions are going to stop an entire generation from engaging with serious leftist thought today and if this kind of ignorance is shared even within the most revolutionary tendencies on the internet then i'd say we're fucked as a race. You know what most of the academic left today could give less of a shit about deconstruction right now- and even derrida disowned the term, and I haven't read anything by or about him in years.

I would here want to begin this conversation, as a constructive learning experiment to address VMC's original issues, and he brings up many.

among other subjects, it would be helpful for VMC to articulate why we should:

(1) Problematize the enlightenment ideals of rationalism, modernism, and science, and the idea of revolution as the realization of authentic democracy ie. "Liberty, Fraternity, Equality"

(2)Problematize the idea that a "pure" marxism hasn't been tried and a future communism can be simply built on an idea that is closer to marx than marxist-leninism or maoism

(3)Ask why it is necessary to make a clean break with democratic liberal ideas and current notions of freedom and human rights. and why they are not adequate for the ideals of a leftist today.


So fuck derrida, but otherwise lets be civil.

[black magick hustla]

blah blah blah blah

I don't know where you have been, but there are all sorts of communist and anarchist pubs out there that deal with contemporary issues and aren't written by academe assholes that are too immersed in identity politic and "multiplicities of narratives" to say anything that is relevant to me, a rootless cosmopolitan who wants to destroy the old world. So the issue is not about pure marxism at all. I rather read the writings of militants and average workers who consciously deal with issues than college windbags that have been castrated a long time ago by whatever grants they get from the state.

Nor I defend the liberal project and its rhetoric on progress and democracy. It is funny, because Bordiga already had attacked these issues in the 1920s way before maudlin assholes who had their dreams destroyed by the failure of May 68 (Derrida, Lyotard, and Baudrilard abandoned socialism shortly after this) sheltered themselves in the realm of philosophical masturbation. Nobody in the mainstream obviously recognizes bordiga, because he was extremely honest in his desire to bring down the forces of democracy and culture, forces that are defended today by "postmodern" academia, which are the mouthpieces of the mediocrity of the liberal democratic state.

I do not care what is relevant to the leftist project or not, because the left is dead to me as it has been for long integrated to the state and its logic.

I protested Molotov's post because I've personally seen college kids who think they are clever by talking down to people who are not up with the latest garbage coming out from academic corpses. They never understood the communist project, because it was always a very simple project that did not require any of this.

[Ravachol]

What Maldoror said.

Also, I think the entire debate about liberal values and what not is ultimately rooted in some search for 'the correct morality for Communism'.

The problem here is not only that there is no absolute morality or ethical truth to be found at all. Truth is and has always been the product of subjective experience and is experienced differently by every actor in the grand play of history. Truth arises from social structures and solidifies when subjectivities intersect and are elevated to the level of institutions. All values and morals are thus the product of a certain historical experience, subject to the social framework it arises under and the accompanying material conditions.

The Communist project is fundamentally about re-discovering the 'lost human community', to use Freddy Perlman's words (if we're namedropping anyway :p). It is about constructing a mode of living that excludes the twins of exploitation and domination from it's structural functioning.

The desire for this project arises as pure need amidst social structures founded around exploitation and domination, whether this need is purely material or part idealistic or oscillates between both ontologies is ultimately irrelevant. The desire for Communism arises from a collective historic experience and is thus established as a collective truth. All morals beneficial to this project are thus 'proper' to it, while those standing in it's way are not.

Ultimately I don't think there is any transcedent truth to be found external to social reality. All truth is immanent and a reflection of desire and force. This is by no means moral relativism, not at all. It is simply stating that me expressing my force with those who share the same subjectivities arising from our material conditions is 'moral'.

[DavidX]

I do write too much. but I did want to have a serious conversation.

I sympathise with you malador a hell of a lot more than Ravachol.

*edit*
Now I don't know where else this has been done on this forum but as a learning experiment for me I'd like to be exposed to some of the ideas of these pubs directly from you. I would like to prove with you that these anaylses and ideas aren't just sentimental bromides or nostalgic callbacks to nineteeth century theory and that they are totally relevant today. (and i'm on your side here) I am supportive but sceptical.

There are a whole lot of people in the academy and theory who ground themselves in marx and are specifically against the whole "post-modern turn" who most likely share your views on all those you charge with irrelevancy and philosophical masturbation.

I didn't know much about Bordiga but we do study Gramsci who is a direct predecessor- i'm interested and i'll do more research. I know Bordiga as someone who holds a more trotskyist, but I don't really see much on what he has to say about contemporary capitalism.

*edit*
However It is funny that anytime someone tries to bring up a serious theoretical idea, it's called "theory" or "academic bullshit" and then someone will irelevantly name drop derrida in order to claim that derrida is irrelevant and therefore anything anyone has ever said in the academy is irrelevant, and that everyone else in the thread is name-dropping.

~~
To ravachol and the others-

On your point that "the entire debate about liberal values and what not is ultimately rooted in some search for 'the correct morality for Communism," why do we care about liberal values if not for precisely to come up with or exclude within our philosophy those elements that do communism no service? I claim you would only take that position if you are a liberal and undoubtedly you understand that liberal values are extremely antithetical to most left wing philosophies, and given that you are on revleft, I don't see why you should presume that everyone shares your sentiments.

[Ravachol]

I didn't know much about Bordiga but we do study Gramsci who is a direct predecessor- i'm interested and i'll do more research. I know Bordiga as a good old trotskyist, but I don't really see much on what he has to say about contemporary capitalism.


I'm not into Bordiga and the whole Italian left-communist scene but I'm pretty sure Bordiga was about as far-off from Trotskyism as you get within Leninism.



To ravachol and the others-
It is funny that anytime someone tries to bring up a serious theoretical idea, it's called "theory" or "academic bullshit" and then someone will irelevantly name drop derrida in order to claim that derrida is irrelevant and therefore anything anyone has ever said in the academy is irrelevant, and that everyone else in the thread is name-dropping.


I think you mean Maldoror here instead of me as you obviously refer to his post.



On your point that "the entire debate about liberal values and what not is ultimately rooted in some search for 'the correct morality for Communism," why do we care about liberal values if not for precisely to come up with or exclude within our philosophy those elements that do communism no service?


I never said we shouldn't "combat liberalism", so to say. I constantly say this actually.



I claim you would only take that position if you are a liberal and undoubtedly you understand that liberal values are extremely antithetical to most left wing philosophies, and given that you are on revleft, I don't see why you should presume that everyone shares your sentiments.

What are you talking about? I'm an anarcho-communist, I just think there is no such thing as transcedent truth. How does that make anyone a liberal?

[DavidX]

Ravachol,
You are most likely much farther from malador's postition than me.

If the conversation is as you say about liberal values then why are you basically talking about 'the correct morality for Communism' anyway.

Please explain your hodgepodge of contradictions and fluffly logic in terms our proletariat friends can understand. and my god, you quote Negri. and you side with the others in trying qualify me and my friends as irrelevant academics!

"The problem here is not only that there is no absolute morality or ethical truth to be found at all." - I violently disagree- where did you come up with that? some introduction to postmodern theory?

[black magick hustla]

[QUOTE=DavidX;1951916]I do write too much. but I did want to have a serious conversation.

I sympathise with you malador a hell of a lot more than Ravachol.

*edit*
Now I don't know where else this has been done on this forum but as a learning experiment for me I'd like to be exposed to some of the ideas of these pubs directly from you. I would like to prove with you that these anaylses and ideas aren't just sentimental bromides or nostalgic callbacks to nineteeth century theory and that they are totally relevant today. (and i'm on your side here) I am supportive but sceptical.

http://nihilistcommunism.blogspot.com/
http://en.internationalism.org/icconline/2010/12/education-revolt
http://libcom.org/aufheben
http://www.leftcom.org/en
http://en.internationalism.org/intreview.htm

guilles dauve, theorie communiste, random insurrectionist journals, blablahblah goldner blahblahblah all of them which are not college journals

[Ravachol]

If the conversation is as you say about liberal values then why are you basically talking about 'the correct morality for Communism' anyway.

Please explain your hodgepodge of contradictions and fluffly logic in terms our proletariat friends can understand. and my god, you quote Negri. and you side with the others in trying qualify me and my friends as irrelevant academics!


Bro, don't get your knickers all in a twist. Where have I said that, I'm pretty sure you are confusing me with someone else as I haven't said anything about you in this entire thread. Pointing out where i'm contradicting myself would be nice as well but I guess you're too offended by something I've clearly never said to care about that.

As for Negri, what about the old man? Where have I stated I'm a negriist? (I'm far from it, actually). I also quote Milton for that matter....



"The problem here is not only that there is no absolute morality or ethical truth to be found at all." - I violently disagree- where did you come up with that? some introduction to postmodern theory?

Nice ad hominem. Are you interested in elaborating why you disagree or are you interested in where I get my ideas? :rolleyes:

[Palingenisis]

I good question to ask is why anybody would want Communism in the first place?

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

its p. funny when folks rail on about "u dont know what r u talking bout read these irrelevant ppl that exist in boring critical theory english depts and sociology depts". its pretty damn patronizing and nobody cares that you can namedrop derrida in a coffee shop

(1) Derrida is a bore.

(2) I don't think making reference to Zizek - a current, well-known philosopher who appears regularly in the media - is pretentious. Further, I did so in response to NGNM85's repeated appeals to (in some cases, centuries dead) liberals. Point being, if we're going to argue from the cannon, and not from our own concrete experience, we might as well do a decent job of it.

(3) Coincidentally, my academic credentials consist of a high school diploma. I'm a minimum-wage worker who happens to be well-read; to assume that good theory is the exclusive province of (coffee-shop) academics is condescending.


among other subjects, it would be helpful for VMC to articulate why we should:

(1) Problematize the enlightenment ideals of rationalism, modernism, and science, and the idea of revolution as the realization of authentic democracy ie. "Liberty, Fraternity, Equality"

(2)Problematize the idea that a "pure" marxism hasn't been tried and a future communism can be simply built on an idea that is closer to marx than marxist-leninism or maoism

(3)Ask why it is necessary to make a clean break with democratic liberal ideas and current notions of freedom and human rights. and why they are not adequate for the ideals of a leftist today.

(1) So far, to my knowledge, the practical realization of projects within the framework of the left as inspired by modernist values have fallen far short of any of my own desires vis- what communization might look like. The notable exception is, perhaps, the Zapatistas, who, while, obviously drawing heavily on the tradition of the Mexican Revolution, also have a healthy dose of indigenous values and practice, as well as a distinctly community scope, as opposed to a totalizing vision.
Speaking to my own experience, the practice of liberal democracy has realized more and more "Liberty, Fraternity, Equality". As NGNM85 pointed out in another thread, the world has only gotten "better", imagined in that sense, as time has gone on. From another point of veiw, however, these alleged universal goods are defined precisely by their exceptions. Life in the worlds freest countries is marked by constant police surviellence, increasing cybernetic density, etc. The victories won by the left (welfare, weekends, etc.) haven't hastened the "final victory", but the best of all posible capitalisms.

(2) Similarly, I think appeals to a "pure" Marxism, or "pure" anything necessarily contain at their core the idea of a universal truth - Marxism, in particular, with its "scientific" approach to history, class, etc. (not to mention its debt to Hegel!) bares the weight of the European tradition in a particularly obvious way.

(3) I don't think a clean break is posible, or necessarily even desirable. The idea of a clean slate itself is utopian, and the fantasy of "Year Zero" had, obviously, disasterous consequences. I guess what interests me, then, is a critical, aware, non-exclusive exploration and application of these ideas. Marx, but not all-of-Marx, and not everywhere or all of the time, for example.


It is funny, because Bordiga already had attacked these issues in the 1920s way before maudlin assholes who had their dreams destroyed by the failure of May 68 (Derrida, Lyotard, and Baudrilard abandoned socialism shortly after this) sheltered themselves in the realm of philosophical masturbation.

Speaking of 1968, I think it is unfortunate that the other side of the post-'68 development hasn't come up - those who instead of abandoning emancipatory projects, further developed the best parts of the "spirit" of '68 - notably Os Cangeceros, the Autonomen, etc.

I'll have to look into this Bordiga character though, I confess that I'm totally unfamiliar.


Unless you have some brilliant insight that totally undermines [science and democracy], feel free to share, my guess is this is just vacuous bullshit.

If the reality of their practice isn't enough for you, I don't see what there is in the world that you could posibly want to change. We live in an age of democracy and science. If you can point to a radically different world of democracy and science, then maybe I'll see their value.

[black magick hustla]

(2) I don't think making reference to Zizek - a current, well-known philosopher who appears regularly in the media - is pretentious. Further, I did so in response to NGNM85's repeated appeals to (in some cases, centuries dead) liberals. Point being, if we're going to argue from the cannon, and not from our own concrete experience, we might as well do a decent job of it.


i didnt say you were pretentious. i said these people are irrelevant, and zizek is philosophically deficient. you aint doin better in the game cuz you read some dude caught up in the theories of some charlatan named lacan





(3) Coincidentally, my academic credentials consist of a high school diploma. I'm a minimum-wage worker who happens to be well-read; to assume that good theory is the exclusive province of (coffee-shop) academics is condescending.



the problem is that that shit is not good theory. nor i assumed you were necessarily a college kid. from the poor to the rich some of em folks love their intellectuals.





(1) So far, to my knowledge, the practical realization of projects within the framework of the left as inspired by modernist values have fallen far short of any of my own desires vis- what communization might look like. The notable exception is, perhaps, the Zapatistas, who, while, obviously drawing heavily on the tradition of the Mexican Revolution, also have a healthy dose of indigenous values and practice, as well as a distinctly community scope, as opposed to a totalizing vision.


liberalism is a failure, but its definitely a worse lack of imagination that some dude that lives in canada romanticizes what never belonged to him (indigenous culture). modernity is a failure, but what was before it was not necessarily better.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

liberalism is a failure, but its definitely a worse lack of imagination that some dude that lives in canada romanticizes what never belonged to him (indigenous culture). modernity is a failure, but what was before it was not necessarily better.

Interestingly, in my particular case, my Dad's family is Acadien/Metis, and the reason indigenous culture hasn't played a role in my life is the forceful and systemic assimilation of my family. That said, I don't think it's a matter of "ownership", or that I'm romanticizing indigenous culture - just presenting that there are, in fact, forms of life outside liberal hegemony.

[DavidX]

I read the "nihilist communism" article. What a good piece. I'm going to come back to this during the winter break when I have more time.

For everybody I highly recommend taking a look at the first link Maldoror posted.

You make some good points, but man you are not reasonable with your total outright dismissal of the academy.

[NGNM85]

Nice ignorant arrogance but if you're not interested in learning why are you here?

No, no, no, no, no. If you want to see arrogance read the post I was responding to.

I am here because this thread is an extension of some extremely dubious remarks made by Virgin Molotov Cocktail that we were arguing about in another thread. I generally avoid ‘Theory’ because it’s a lost cause. I generally stick to ‘Sciences’, or ‘Politics’, or something else.


As for your statements do you defend the right to property?

That depends on how you’re choosing to define ‘property.’


The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are all based on this right in the conception of liberalism.

Not exactly. Second, regardless, this does nothing to discredit the idea that people have rights, and that among them is the right to free expression, or that the political process should in some way reflect the desires of the masses, etc., etc.


The right to your body is the right to property, as was explicitly put by the supreme court in Roe V Wade.

That’s almost correct. The issue largely centers around the right to privacy is and interpretations of the Fourth, Ninth, and the Fourteenth amendments.


The right to liberty is the right to freedom of the press, freedom to vote, freedom of speech,

Those are part of it, yes. Are you suggesting we would be better off without freedom of speech, or the right to political participation? If that’s you’re solution I’m hardly impressed.

Or, perhaps, you don’t ‘believe’ in the concept or human rights?


etc all of which are quite obviously warped by the power of capital to the point of uselessness.

That’s ridiculous. I have no shortage of grievances with the United States government, but to say that it is in no way a better than a totalitarian police state is ridiculous. This is yet another example of how radical left engages in impassioned debate over the painfully obvious. This kind of thinking could accurately be described as ‘religious.’


The right to happiness really means the right to pursue economic freedom, which really means the right to capital.

It has it’s origins in various Enlightenment texts. It vague, like ‘Hope’, or ‘Change’, it’s a blank canvas on which you can paint just about anything you like.


Of course Jefferson was a pretty cool guy, and saw the dangers of capitalism warping and destroying his agricultural utopian vision. I've read the Louisiana purchase was a last ditch attempt by him to save America from capitalism, as the east coast was already lost by the time he became president.

I think a number of the great Enlightenment thinkers would be Socialists, today.

[NGNM85]

(1) Derrida is a bore.

Holy crap, we actually agree on something.


(Further, I did so in response to NGNM85's repeated appeals to (in some cases, centuries dead) liberals. Point being, if we're going to argue from the cannon, and not from our own concrete experience, we might as well do a decent job of it.

This is absurd. Ideas do not have 'sell-by' dates. You do not abandon them like last-years' fashions, because they are no longer 'hip.' The concept of Gravitation was discovered by Isaac Newton over 200 years ago, but I'm sticking with it, not in the least because it would be absurd to do otherwise. This is based on the merit of the idea, itself. Many old ideas are, in fact, very bad ideas, I mentioned astrology, human sacrifice, alchemy, etc., but they are bad ideas because they are incorrect, they are based on suppositions, or misinformation, that can be easily discredited.


((3) Coincidentally, my academic credentials consist of a high school diploma. I'm a minimum-wage worker who happens to be well-read; to assume that good theory is the exclusive province of (coffee-shop) academics is condescending.

You aren't espousing good theory, just intellectualized nonsense.


((Speaking to my own experience,

Here we go...


((the practice of liberal democracy has realized more and more "Liberty, Fraternity, Equality". As NGNM85 pointed out in another thread, the world has only gotten "better", imagined in that sense, as time has gone on. From another point of veiw, however, these alleged universal goods are defined precisely by their exceptions. Life in the worlds freest countries is marked by constant police surviellence, increasing cybernetic density, etc. The victories won by the left (welfare, weekends, etc.) haven't hastened the "final victory", but the best of all posible capitalisms.

You speak in such densely tangled knots of misconceptions and nonsense it's tough to unravel. Yes, life has gotten 'better' than it ever has been for human beings. This is taking into account human beings generally desire physical safety, freedom from illness and disease, political freedoms, food, shelter, or desires like intellectual or artistic fulfillment, etc. Yes, more human beings, enjoy more of these things than at any other time in the history of the human species. That is a fact. Now, that's not to say things can't be better, even being better than any other time in human history, we can, and should, be apalled and outaged that things aren't better than they, presently, are. There are concrete steps we can take to achieve that.


((If the reality of their practice isn't enough for you, I don't see what there is in the world that you could posibly want to change. We live in an age of democracy and science. If you can point to a radically different world of democracy and science, then maybe I'll see their value.

I'd say that's a pathetic excuse for an argument but that's giving you too much credit.

Again, this is such a tangled knot of nonsense. First; We live in an age where democracy exists, (It didn't, always.) in certain places, to certain degrees.

Second; There is a difference between having democracy, and being a democracy.

Third; Politicians lie, I'm sorry to have to break it to you. This is why their statements have to be evaluated critically. Even the most grotesque acts of aggression are almost universally characterized as self-defense, even the most brutal oppression has been justified as benevolence. You need to be able to distinguish the concepts from the people who apply them, don't apply them, or periodically apply them. Also, by this logic you have to dismiss Communism, as well.

Fourth, if we completely discard democracy then we are left with totalitarianism. There's no third option. There are gradiations, but a society without any sort of democracy is a police state. I don't find that desirable.

For the second time I dare you to elaborate on this hostility to science. Please, I implore you to make a cogent argument for irrationality as a better tool to understand the world and how it works. Of course you can't, because it would undermine your initial premise, and because it's an asinine conjecture. I restate my conclusion that you offer nothing but intellectualized verbiage with no substance.

[not your usual suspect]

Communism is a project aiming to bring about a classless stateless society, where the "means of production" are "owned" in common by the community. Liberalism, in the traditional sense, is a project for freedom. Most liberals see freedom as stemming from the ownership of property, and think that a government is required to protect this freedom. The communist project grew out of the enlightenment, and originally was, and still is, influenced by liberalism. Though it is certainly true that "communism" as an end result could be conceived of as a drab, dreary, gray, and, most importantly, not free, society, I reject that such an end result is desirable. You might be saying now that communism could only result in a free society. Regardless, my point is that freedom should be a goal for the communist project, just as much as the other points mentioned above. So if freedom should be a very important part of the communist project, then liberalism (a project for freedom) is obviously going to influence communism. Outside of the very narrow conception of liberalism described above, there are various themes within liberalism that also are shared by (at least some strands of) communism. Egalitarianism, due process, pluralism, and even, fraternity, are also "liberal" values that should be included in the communist project. These enlightenment ideals (rather, perhaps, than "liberal" ideals) should be part of communism because they are progressive, and communism too should be progressive. For the same reason communism should be rationalist and materialist. I disagree that the 'communist project imagines itself as the "true" putting-into-practice of the ideals of bourgeois revolution'. The bourgeois revolutions were always to put into power the emerging capitalist classes. The idea equality was equality before the law, rather than equality in the communist sense. The idea of freedom was dependent on property. I could go on to demonstrate the the ideals of the capitalists were not ideals for the mass of the people, but for themselves. Whereas, I would argue, liberalism is a different, philosophical project, which is claimed by many capitalists, but in reality is rejected (the "liberal-democracies" are neither liberal, nor democratic). To answer the question then, "What would a practice of communization look like without liberal values?" It would probably look either religious, or the drab, dreary and gray communism envisaged by the various anti-communist authors. The above notwithstanding, I don't disagree that we should examine closely the underlying values of the various belief systems that underpin communism as it is understood. Self-criticism and self-reflection are valued tools in the materialist's toolbox. We should be happy for our ideas to be challenged, to better re-enforce the correctness of them. (If they are not correct, we should be happier to have them challenged.)