The Dreaded Thought

[trivas7]

Thinking re the anniversary of the death of John Lennon -- a visionary if there ever was one -- it strikes me that the dreaded thought most rev leftists refuse to admit is that perhaps the working class is not capable of managing its own affairs. That workers have the need for entrepreneurial skills and the talents of visionaries, pioneers, and the crazies in art and science that have made the most contributions to the way the world looks today (if you think Lennon could have existed in a socialist world, look again). Entrepreneurism and voluntarism are the goals of any rational society; where in a socialist world do they fit in?

[Bud Struggle]

Interesting film from PBS: How the Beatles Rocked the Kremlin. The filmmaker takes the position that the Beatles were in part for the downfall of the Soviet Union.

http://www.thirteen.org/beatles/video/video-watch-how-the-beatles-rocked-the-kremlin/36/

On your original point, though: I think all of Capitalism is based on that idea.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Reading yr post, it strikes me that assuming the working class isn't full of visionaries, pioneers, and crazies is some elitist bullshit.
Further, where the fuck has the project of building a "rational" society gotten us - capitalist, socialist, or otherwise?

[RGacky3]

Thinking re the anniversary of the death of John Lennon -- a visionary if there ever was one -- it strikes me that the dreaded thought most rev leftists refuse to admit is that perhaps the working class is not capable of managing its own affairs. That workers have the need for entrepreneurial skills and the talents of visionaries, pioneers, and the crazies in art and science that have made the most contributions to the way the world looks today (if you think Lennon could have existed in a socialist world, look again). Entrepreneurism and voluntarism are the goals of any rational society; where in a socialist world do they fit in?


A visionary? He wrote good songs, so have a lot of people, almost none of which, were pro-capitalist, John Lennon was a socialist.

[#FF0000]

I lost a lot of friends when I put "Happy Birthday John Lennon" as my facebook status the other day.

[RGacky3]

you have a lot of crappy friends.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I don't know what you mean by "voluntarism" but entrepreneurship has only been around for a few hundred years and only considered a virtue for maybe 200 years at most. Ever heard the term "new money"? Really until the Victorian age, birthright was considered a much greater social virtue than being "self-made" or being an entrepreneur.

What has allowed societies to develop art, culture, inventions and so on depends mostly on there being a surplus created by that society. Early feudalism was relatively stagnant because surplus was small and spread out among many localized ruling classes. In the later middle ages increased centralization of wealth allowed larger powers like the Church and Kings to invest more into art academies. Capitalism is the most dynamic class system that has occurred and so there has been a lot more surplus, but even then the initial capital depended on stealing most of it either by forced labor, or creating private ownership out of once common areas (like all of North and South America, and parts of Asia and Africa).

Without a social surplus, it does not matter how creative an individual is or could become. So the real question is who controls the surplus and to what purpose it is put. In feudalism a lot of surplus went to glorify the aristocrats, church, and monarchy to reinforce the sense that they are the rightful rulers of society. Under capitalism, surplus becomes capital for reinvestment on the basis of what will produce the most profits and returns. While this is more dynamic and progressive than feudalism or slave-societies it is hardly a rational (let alone democratic or "fair") way to organize surplus our collective labor creates: spending resources to develop analogues to Viagra or stress pills may be profitable, but it is hardly a rational goal for a society where people still die of treatable illness due to a lack of access. Developing plants that do not create seeds in order to “patent” seeds is hardly a rational use of resources in a society where millions of people starve and grain and milk is dumped to help countries compete with each other economically is not rational.

As for people like John Lennon, he was able to devote his life to music and then art because of a fluke – despite the system, not because of it and he was keenly aware that if it had not been part of the Beatles, he would have ended up a working class “joe” like the people he grew up with. For every Dominican baseball player or working class kid that makes it as an actor or musician, there are probably tens of thousands of other who never get the shot and millions who never even have any chance to develop their skills or interests. Look at the Beatles early music – it was because they could devote the time to develop their skills, meet and work with people who had more skills than they did, that they could develop beyond most pop-bands of that time.

In a world where people collectively and democratically control surplus and our labor, there would also be a democratization of skills as more people would have the time and ability to study the science, art, or practical skills that they want. Then anyone will be able to live to their potential rather than having to put their hobbies and dreams on hold in order to work 8+ hours just to survive… imagine that!

[#FF0000]

imagine that!

I wonder if you can

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Thinking re the anniversary of the death of John Lennon -- a visionary if there ever was one -- it strikes me that the dreaded thought most rev leftists refuse to admit is that perhaps the working class is not capable of managing its own affairs. That workers have the need for entrepreneurial skills and the talents of visionaries, pioneers, and the crazies in art and science that have made the most contributions to the way the world looks today (if you think Lennon could have existed in a socialist world, look again). Entrepreneurism and voluntarism are the goals of any rational society; where in a socialist world do they fit in?

Where does voluntarism fit in when thousands of young men are forced to go to southeast asia and kill?

Was it entrepreneurship to make and sell agent orange to clear forests?

How many tons of high explosives do you need to drop on a country before the myth of voluntarism and freedom are completely obliterated?


http://www.kunstcentrum-haarlem.nl/uploads/images/agenda/8.jpg


-thread closed-

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Further, where the fuck has the project of building a "rational" society gotten us - capitalist, socialist, or otherwise?

It got us out of the muck of previous societies. As much as capitalism sucks, feudalism sucks worse.

The universe before the Enlightenment was a dark and scary place, ruled by the whims of a tyrannical God and/or other fickle supernatural beings. Everybody had their social station and to deviate from it was to be an outlaw.

What's most galling is that you're most likely some pampered Westerner who's never lived in a world without electricity, so your continuing anti-rationalism is a source of contempt.

[Manic Impressive]

eeeerrrr..............John Lennon was working class you're not using that bull shit argument that the oppression of the working class produces better art and music are you?
because if you are :laugh::cursing:

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

It seems that trivas7 has a habit of occasionally starting threads wherein he makes a pompous ass of himself.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

The universe before the Enlightenment was a dark and scary place, ruled by the whims of a tyrannical God and/or other fickle supernatural beings. Everybody had their social station and to deviate from it was to be an outlaw.

Thank you for yr concise history of everywhere. It's good to see you've done yr research.

[Robert]

It really bothers me that Lennon played Gibson acoustics when he had the dough to buy Martins. He must have had a reason but I'm damned if I can figure it out.

I also think Lennon was a lazy sum*****, for real, lying in bed with Yoko all day strumming that stupid Gibson like this enlightened guru while I was out bustin' my ass on oil rigs. He was a great rocker in the very early days, but god he got on my nerves. And Imagine really makes me ill. The piano is out of tune. Ever notice that? Why didn't he tune the piano?

Answer: lazy sum*****.

[Revolution starts with U]

Gibson has a very classic and smooth sound. I prefer them.
On some of your other points I agree tho. Lennon is a great guy when you're just being introduced. And the music (especially the Beatles) is heavenly (imo).
But when you learn why they guy who killed him did it... I kind of agree with him (except for the whole killing part).
How are you going to ask me to imagine no possessions from your high rise in downtown NYC while you tell the crew to start up the yacht?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Thank you for yr concise history of everywhere. It's good to see you've done yr research.

So what particular society in history do you hark back to that's just so wonderful, eh?

[Jalapeno Enema]

Thinking re the anniversary of the death of John Lennon -- a visionary if there ever was one -- it strikes me that the dreaded thought most rev leftists refuse to admit is that perhaps the working class is not capable of managing its own affairs.//http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/95/Jim_Horne_%281953%29.jpgreally?

And so the upper-class is better qualified to manage everybody's affairs?

http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/0805/idiots-fail-paris-hilton-demotivational-poster-1211763018.jpg

[#FF0000]

Oh this reminds me. One of my mom's closest friends was the emergency nurse who was there when Lennon was brought in to the hospital.

[#FF0000]

That's right. Someone I know failed to save someone famous. :cool:

[Revolution starts with U]

The entrepreneur has just as much right to run his affairs as the worker does.
THAT is the whole point.

Edit for clarity; take it in reverse as well.

[Jalapeno Enema]

The entrepreneur has just as much right to run his affairs as the worker does.
THAT is the whole point.

Edit for clarity; take it in reverse as well.
I can agree with that.

[ZeroNowhere]

The working class isn't capable of managing its own affairs, though. That's why we want to abolish it.

[Jalapeno Enema]

I wouldn't say the working class isn't capable of managing its own affairs. Lacks the means to, perhaps, but every ability to.

[RGacky3]

Maybe the working class is'nt capable of maneging everything, but they are capable of selecting people that are and holding them absolutely accountable, some poeple just don't have any concept of what democracy is.

[ComradeMan]

I wouldn't say the working class isn't capable of managing its own affairs. Lacks the means to, perhaps, but every ability to.

This is the problem with a lot of theory. The working class is not one monolithic block. It is not one person with one head and one uniform thought process. Too much reification of abstract concepts.

[Kayser_Soso]

The entrepreneur has just as much right to run his affairs as the worker does.
THAT is the whole point.

.

As long as he doesn't exploit the workers. Of course when the workers own their means of production, they can easily out-produce entrepreneurs.

[Thirsty Crow]

Thinking re the anniversary of the death of John Lennon -- a visionary if there ever was one -- it strikes me that the dreaded thought most rev leftists refuse to admit is that perhaps the working class is not capable of managing its own affairs. I admit - nowadays, workers do exhibit a need for managers in the broadest meaning possible.
But the point is that you are making of it an essential trait, something which follows naturally...from what? Human nature?
In any case, if one were to argue that the working class is not capable of managing its own affairs (the struggle, immediate production etc.), at the same time he/she must argue for an a-historical view if class divisions which maintains that there is indeed an essence to humn beings which cannot be transcended. And that would be a blatantly wrong assertion.


That workers have the need for entrepreneurial skills and the talents of visionaries, pioneers, and the crazies in art and science that have made the most contributions to the way the world looks today (if you think Lennon could have existed in a socialist world, look again). Entrepreneurism and voluntarism are the goals of any rational society; where in a socialist world do they fit in?
What are, exactly, these famous entrepreneurial skills and how does one acquire them?
If this presupposes the skills related to market performance, sale and realization of pofit - no, workers do not need such skills.
And speaking about crazies in art, if you think that a Majakovskij is possible in post WW II capitalist countries - look again.
It's really hillarious how you cling to the example of this poor songwriter who happened to come long, use the established means of commercial propaganda, and succeed. What is so visionary about Lennon? And, furthermore, why would "a Lennon" not be possible in the global socialist world?
Would all art cease to exist? Or do you think that the state would direct is development? As someone who wishes to make art myself, I cannot imagine my work being made the vbest way possible in this our common capitalist world.

In any case, it seems to me that you are relying on the myth of innovation as only triggered by economic competition.

And how can entrepreneurism and voluntarism be bases of a rational society if they lead to irrationality - the crises, the inequaliy and suffering resulting from it?

[Bud Struggle]

I guess a good example of workers managing or not managing their own affairs would be the state of Communism in the world today.

If Worker Struggles isn't the affair of the Proletariat--and one they have no help from entepreneaurs in--I don't know what is.

[La Comédie Noire]

I wish he had lived so he could have been revealed for the corporate shill he is. Don't get me wrong I still wish he got shot, I'd just want him to survive and crap in a bag like that other giant fraud Pope John Paul II

[hatzel]

Here's a dreaded thought for you: most of the Beatles' songs weren't even that good...and for a Mr John 'I-wrote-a-lot-of-pretty-average-songs-and-a-few-good-ones-but-that-was-enough-because-the-industry-guru-had-organised-a-good-campaign-for-us-so-that-all-the-teenage-girls-would-go-crazy-for-us-even-though-we-are-clearly-not-particularly-attractive' Lennon to then go telling us of the evils of the greedy capitalist system...flugg off!

Maybe I should post something new in the predictions for 2012 thread. Judging by history, this is my new prediction: in 2012, one of the Jonas Brothers will write a song telling us that the whole American capitalist system is flawed, against a backdrop of Afghanistan, and then somebody will shoot him but still he'll be an absolute darling of everybody. Long live peace, support the Jonas Brothers...

Incidentally, I saw a girl at the student protests yesterday with a sign that said 'John Lennon - 1980. Education - 2010'. I begged for it not to be true, but I looked again and confirmed that it was. Oy vey iz mir.

[Thirsty Crow]

I guess a good example of workers managing or not managing their own affairs would be the state of Communism in the world today.

If Worker Struggles isn't the affair of the Proletariat--and one they have no help from entepreneaurs in--I don't know what is.
Sure, but keep in mind that this cannot be translated into an everlasting "fact" or "nature" which would then function as a factor for assessment of the social problems by means of establishing the natural boundary which we must not transcend.
This is the strategy of Trivas.

[ComradeMan]

Come on guys, he was just a song writer and singer- some of his things were pretty visionary, some weren't. A lot of people look back with nostalgia too, to the 1960s when things were going to be oh so different and all that. I don't think he claimed to be a major revolutionary but he did have a revolutionary message in that until you change yourself you can't change anything else. I think that was pretty laudable.

The problem with icons is what happens to them after they die. Jim Morrison became an icon, Comandante Che became an icon and John Lennon became an icon. Perhaps it confirms the ancient Greek-- "whom the gods love dies young"? - immortalised in youth and fame, cut down before their time to get old and grumpy and nasty. Or would we prefer them to be Dorian Greys?

[Thirsty Crow]

Come on guys, he was just a song writer and singer- some of his things were pretty visionary, some weren't. A lot of people look back with nostalgia too, to the 1960s when things were going to be oh so different and all that. I don't think he claimed to be a major revolutionary but he did have a revolutionary message in that until you change yourself you can't change anything else. I think that was pretty laudable.

And what is so visionary about that?
"Be the change ou want to see" is a mantra heard even before that visionary Lennon (I cannot believe how has the term "visionary" come to signify pop stars). It is also a matter of common sense.

[ComradeMan]

And what is so visionary about that?
"Be the change ou want to see" is a mantra heard even before that visionary Lennon (I cannot believe how has the term "visionary" come to signify pop stars). It is also a matter of common sense.

Well, he did spread the word to a lot of people through his music, that's all. "Imagine" was pretty visionary too.

Look, I am not even a big John Lennon fan to be honest, but I think people are being a bit hard on the guy here.

[Thirsty Crow]

Well, he did spread the word to a lot of people through his music, that's all. "Imagine" was pretty visionary too.

Yeah, a pretty revolutionary song about how we can imagine a better world on order that our conscience may be at rest.
And what was the character of that word? Do you really intend to argue that it was Lennon who inspired several generations to fight back against structural inequality and oppression?

I'd say no, and by the way, fuck him and fuck the Beatles.

And sorry if it seems to you that we're being to hard on him, but all would be okay if the OP just stated that he was a decent musician who managed to get popular as hell, but no oh boy no, he all of a sudden becomes a visionary.

[ComradeMan]

Yeah, a pretty revolutionary song about how we can imagine a better world on order that our conscience may be at rest.
And what was the character of that word? Do you really intend to argue that it was Lennon who inspired several generations to fight back against structural inequality and oppression?

I'd say no, and by the way, fuck him and fuck the Beatles.

And sorry if it seems to you that we're being to hard on him, but all would be okay if the OP just stated that he was a decent musician who managed to get popular as hell, but no oh boy no, he all of a sudden becomes a visionary.

John Lennon didn't make himself to be El Che did he?

FFS!!!

Would you rather he had been a gangster rapper?

Not everyone can be a revolutionary guerilla soldier but they can revolutionise in other ways.

WTF did Karl Marx do other than sit on his ass and write books and criticise living off the donations of his bourgeois "trendy" friends and relatives? He wasn't exactly working 18 hours a day down a coalmine was he?

[Thirsty Crow]

John Lennon didn't make himself to be El Che did he?

FFS!!!

Would you rather he had been a gangster rapper?

Not everyone can be a revolutionary guerilla soldier but they can revolutionise in other ways.

WTF did Karl Marx do other than sit on his ass and write books and criticise living off the donations of his bourgeois "trendy" friends and relatives? He wasn't exactly working 18 hours a day down a coalmine was he?
Nice collection of straw man "arguments".
The fact remains: the song you mentioned is a pacifist call to people's imaginations. Another fact: the cultural influence of Beatles did not extend to a potentially subversive cultural practices.

Oh yeah, in case you didn't know, Marx was also politically active, very much so (IWA ring a bell?).

And just to piss you off - fuck Lennon and fuck the Beatles, for the second time :p

[ComradeMan]

Nice collection of straw man "arguments".
The fact remains: the song you mentioned is a pacifist call to people's imaginations. Another fact: the cultural influence of Beatles did not extend to a potentially subversive cultural practices.

Oh yeah, in case you didn't know, Marx was also politically active, very much so (IWA ring a bell?).

And just to piss you off - fuck Lennon and fuck the Beatles, for the second time :p

They are not strawmen, he was singing and writing during the Cold War, the Vietnam War and the 70s with all its social upheaval. Of course he could have spewed out shit like "I wish they all were California Girls" and "Surfin' USA" or perhaps even the fucking Osmonds "Crazy Horses", but he didn't, he took an anti-establishment stance.

It's not pissing me off, I just think you're being melodramatic to be honest about a guy who was a singer and some people thought were very visionary.

As for the last comment, I suppose you must be more of a Rolling Stones fan?

Not that I am down on Marx, because I am not taking your outlook, but Karl Marx finished off his life with quite a comfortable lifestyle due to the fact he had inherited wealth from his wife's uncle. Karl Marx was privately educated, he married the daughter of a Prussian baron, studied at university, he also survived of another inheritance from his father. He never worked in an industrial sense his whole life nor was he manning the barricades of the Paris Commune, was he? But of course he could criticise the communards from his lofty, high and mighty theoretical position!!!:rolleyes:

There are some here who would probably denounce him as a western bourgeois liberal!!!! :lol:

John Lennon wrote songs that inspired a lot of people and had a progressive message that reached millions.

Deal with it.

[trivas7]

[...]And how can entrepreneurism and voluntarism be bases of a rational society if they lead to irrationality - the crises, the inequaliy and suffering resulting from it?
Perhaps the paradox(contradiction?) of being human leads to these outcomes. As someone like Freud would argue, perhaps we are ultimately not rational creatures.

And yes, I tend to believe that there are biological constraints on human nature that don't allow for a society to function free of some form of entrepreneuriship and voluntary intercourse among its members. Human beings aren't infinitely malleable by whomever wishes to improve social outcomes.

[RGacky3]

And yes, I tend to believe that there are biological constraints on human nature that don't allow for a society to function free of some form of entrepreneuriship and voluntary intercourse among its members. Human beings aren't infinitely malleable by whomever wishes to improve social outcomes.

What does entrepreneuriship (read creativity) and voluntaryism have to do with Capitalism? OR markets?

[Revolution starts with U]

Here's the thing Trivas... if you support what you say you do... does that mean you would be perfectly happy with a capital-feudalism, where the entrepreneurs own all the land, and write all the laws with no input from the common worker?
If not... then shut up, nobody cares. One worker may not be competent to run his own affaris, but the people as a whole are.

[Jimmie Higgins]

The Lennon haters really need some perspective I think. If you just don't like his music, that's fine, that's a personal taste issue. But really think if Justin Bieber or maybe Justin Timberlake is a better example or Lil' Wayne a few years from now was using their fame to champion political prisoners and black power radicals. That's why John Lennon is significant - there was no reason for him to stick out his neck politically - he could have gone more in the apolitical counter-culture direction, but he was radicalizing and for someone of his fame and fortune to do so is significant.

[Bud Struggle]

If not... then shut up, nobody cares. One worker may not be competent to run his own affaris, but the people as a whole are.
Maybe, but maybe the reason that Communist Revolutions never end up Communist but rather some sort of benevolent (or not so beneovlent) dictatorships is that the people can't manage their own affairs.

Maybe. :cool:

[RGacky3]

Maybe, but maybe the reason that Communist Revolutions never end up Communist but rather some sort of benevolent (or not so beneovlent) dictatorships is that the people can't manage their own affairs.

Maybe. :cool:

If you believe that I suppose you don't believe in freedom and democracy.

[Bud Struggle]

If you believe that I suppose you don't believe in freedom and democracy.

It means I don't believe in Communist Revolutions ever working out. :)

[RGacky3]

It means I don't believe in Communist Revolutions ever working out. :)

Well either you believe in people maneging their own affairs or you don't.

(BTW, I'll say it again, those socalled communist revolutions were not people maneging their own affairs, and you know that, but you don't care because facts clearly don't matter to you, only team America.)

[trivas7]

What does entrepreneuriship (read creativity) and voluntaryism have to do with Capitalism? OR markets?
If I have to tell you you haven't a clue re how capitalism works.

[RGacky3]

It works by rewarding wealth and power, not creativity. Voluntaryism has nothing to do with capitalism, capitalism is all about priavte tyrannies controling the wealth and using it to exploit the poor, thats not voluntaryism by the poor to be exploited, thats exploitation.

See you and other free-market supporters have an idealisti view of capitalism which can be disproven by simply opening your eyes.

[#FF0000]

If I have to tell you you haven't a clue re how capitalism works.

Yeah no you're right capitalism rewards creativity all the time. I mean that's why Nikolai Tesla died poor and never really knew success while Edison made it big by putting his own name on the work people under him did.

Also I love the double-speak by anti-communists.

"Communism denies freedom!"
"Working people can't manage their own affairs".

Really makes it clear whose "freedom" capitalism is concerned with.

[RGacky3]

Also I love the double-speak by anti-communists.

"Communism denies freedom!"
"Working people can't manage their own affairs".

Really makes it clear whose "freedom" capitalism is concerned with.

Could'nt have said it better myself, most of them I'd suggest are both autocrats AND totally ignorant of how economics and power works.

[ComradeMan]

This was more interesting when it was about John Lennon. :lol:

[Os Cangaceiros]

people can't manage their own affairs.

People manage their own affairs in the context of our present societies every day.

[#FF0000]

This was more interesting when it was about John Lennon. :lol:

No one appreciated my john lennon birthday joke. :(

[Bud Struggle]

Well either you believe in people maneging their own affairs or you don't. I believe a structured Repubilc set up with well set up laws and a democraticly elected governance is the best way for people to manage their own affairs.


(BTW, I'll say it again, those socalled communist revolutions were not people maneging their own affairs, and you know that, but you don't care because facts clearly don't matter to you, only team America.) Well, let's see. YOU don't think those socalled Communist Revolutions were people managing their own affairs. I can find a number of people around the world and here and RevLeft that think that is just what they did. So it's a matter of belief, not fact.

Me: I think honest people gave it their best shot--and that's how it turned out.


People manage their own affairs in the context of our present societies every day. Quoting me a tad out of context, aren't you Comrade? ;) And yes they do on a Micro scale. Anyway--the question is could they do so on a Macro scale--WITHOUT becomming the thing wich they sought to escape in the first place.

That is the question. (As Shakespeare would say. :D )

[#FF0000]

I believe a structured Repubilc set up with well set up laws and a democraticly elected governance is the best way for people to manage their own affairs.

I think this too, but I don't think you can have one of these in a society in which class exists. Tell me, who has more pull? Me, or Haliburton or Lockheed Martin?

[Jimmie Higgins]

No one appreciated my john lennon birthday joke. :(Well I didn't get it at first because I don't know his biographical details well enough to get it and I've been avoiding all the Beatles hype as much as possible. An anniversary of an assassination or having your music on a video game seem to be equivalent to the corporate PR vultures hype machines.

Edit: I do like the Beatles music, Rubber Soul and on, but I can't stand the other Beatles - the Beatles endless marketing Frankenstein.

[Bud Struggle]

I think this too, but I don't think you can have one of these in a society in which class exists. Tell me, who has more pull? Me, or Haliburton or Lockheed Martin?

And I agree there is a problem there. But the society is self correction--over TIME. Joe McCarthy get corrected, so did Standard Oil. So did the Railroad trusts, etc.

This too shall pass.

[#FF0000]

And I agree there is a problem there. But the society is self correction--over TIME. Joe McCarthy get corrected, so did Standard Oil. So did the Railroad trusts, etc.

Same shit different era. We aren't concerned with the names and the faces and the companies. We're concerned with the massive imbalance of power in capitalism, which isn't going away.

[RGacky3]

I believe a structured Repubilc set up with well set up laws and a democraticly elected governance is the best way for people to manage their own affairs.


I.e. TEAM AMERICA!!!!!!!!!

You don't have principles really, you just support team America.

But anyway, if you believe in democracy as a principle, and if you believe in liberty as a principle, you'd be against Capitalism, but you don't.


Well, let's see. YOU don't think those socalled Communist Revolutions were people managing their own affairs. I can find a number of people around the world and here and RevLeft that think that is just what they did. So it's a matter of belief, not fact.

Me: I think honest people gave it their best shot--and that's how it turned out.


Its not a matter of belief, because there are facts, if all of this is a matter of belief I can say that the US is run by Al Queda and just say its a matter of belief, thats the biggest much of horse shit I've heard.

These so called revolutions have to be proved to be functioning democracies based on the facts or they are not, and they are not.

You use it as a copout to try and disprove any realy democracy because you don't believe in that, or anything, just Team-America and Team-Rulingclass.

[RGacky3]

But the society is self correction--over TIME. Joe McCarthy get corrected, so did Standard Oil. So did the Railroad trusts, etc.


THROUGH REVOLUTOINS, the braking up of trusts and so on were the end result of decades of militant worker and citizen action. Its not something that just happens, they are the result of revolution.

Either you support doing nothing and letting things get worse (which is what you do but saying "don't worry i'll be ok), or you support things getting better and support revolution.

[Bud Struggle]

I.e. TEAM AMERICA!!!!!!!!!

You don't have principles really, you just support team America.

But anyway, if you believe in democracy as a principle, and if you believe in liberty as a principle, you'd be against Capitalism, but you don't.
What are you doing here with this beyond proving that Human Being are not logical creatures?


Its not a matter of belief, because there are facts, if all of this is a matter of belief I can say that the US is run by Al Queda and just say its a matter of belief, thats the biggest much of horse shit I've heard. Well, OK. Calm down. :rolleyes:


These so called revolutions have to be proved to be functioning democracies based on the facts or they are not, and they are not. I believe these Revolutions were fought by people of good will. Things turned ou badly--but READ Lenin and Trosky and Mao and even STALIN. They started out to be people of good will. Their failure was--or maybe is systemic to Communism.


You use it as a copout to try and disprove any realy democracy because you don't believe in that, or anything, just Team-America and Team-Rulingclass. I don't think so--I try to be fair.
I'm a poor person that make a couple of bucks--so I try to see both sides.

But to be honest, I'll agree that America's been good to me.

[Bud Struggle]

THROUGH REVOLUTOINS, the braking up of trusts and so on were the end result of decades of militant worker and citizen action. Its not something that just happens, they are the result of revolution. Yup. They changed CAPITALISM. And for the better. Maybe we need more Revolutions WITHIN Capitalism. Brother Gack, you fail to realize unions are CAPITALIST ORGANIZATIONS. They function WITHIN Capitalism. They don't oppose the Capitalist system at all--they moderate it and modity it. They are GOOD for Capitalsim. Without Unions we'd be living in Communism today. :)


Either you support doing nothing and letting things get worse (which is what you do but saying "don't worry i'll be ok), or you support things getting better and support revolution.

Life just isn't that black and white. (And FYI: money's alway's made in the gray. ;) )

You kind of remind me of St. Paul. He's GREAT in heaven, but was probably hell to live around on earth. ;)

[RGacky3]

What are you doing here with this beyond proving that Human Being are not logical creatures?


Your not all Human beings.


I believe these Revolutions were fought by people of good will. Things turned ou badly--but READ Lenin and Trosky and Mao and even STALIN. They started out to be people of good will. Their failure was--or maybe is systemic to Communism.


The failure of stalin, trosky and mao is that they did'nt actually believe in democracy which is they key to any sort of communism.


I'm a poor person that make a couple of bucks--so I try to see both sides.

But to be honest, I'll agree that America's been good to me.

Semantics, nothing more, your always defending team-america and team-capitalists no matter what.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

So what particular society in history do you hark back to that's just so wonderful, eh?

My aim is not to glorify past societies. I simply wish to posit that a value judgment to the effect that current settler society, and that its ideology of industrialism/progress is necessarily better, is simply that (ideological).
That said, I think there are incredibly valuable lessons to be learned from the non-hierarchical, ecologically-very-sound, practices of the First Nations with which I'm most familiar - the Haudenosaunee and some of the more North-Eastern Algonquin groupings (between whom, ironically, there are periods of historical conflict). Further these aren't cultures that existed in the past, but that persist, and provide some of the most valuable (and militant!) examples of resistance the the encroachment of the state and capital (Oka, the ongoing resistance to development around Brantford, etc.).

[RGacky3]

Yup. They changed CAPITALISM. And for the better. Maybe we need more Revolutions WITHIN Capitalism. Brother Gack, you fail to realize unions are CAPITALIST ORGANIZATIONS. They function WITHIN Capitalism. They don't oppose the Capitalist system at all--they moderate it and modity it. They are GOOD for Capitalsim. Without Unions we'd be living in Communism today

THey had revolutions and the ruling class and politicians changed society to stop those revolutions.

THey were not within capitalism they were OUTSIDE of the market, they were against the market, unions are not part of most pro-capitalist economists world view.


Life just isn't that black and white. (And FYI: money's alway's made in the gray. ;) )


Don't believe I ever said anything is black and white.

[trivas7]

Reading yr post, it strikes me that assuming the working class isn't full of visionaries, pioneers, and crazies is some elitist bullshit.

Fair enough.


Further, where the fuck has the project of building a "rational" society gotten us - capitalist, socialist, or otherwise?
So you are trying to bring about an irrational society?

[anticap]

Imagine really makes me ill. The piano is out of tune. Ever notice that? Why didn't he tune the piano?

Answer: lazy sum*****.

I can't tell if it is or not, but if so then it may have been intentional. Lennon used to intentionally tune the D-string on his guitars slightly flat.


when you learn why they guy who killed him did it... I kind of agree with him (except for the whole killing part).
How are you going to ask me to imagine no possessions from your high rise in downtown NYC while you tell the crew to start up the yacht?

This was not lost on Lennon. When he played the song live he would "wonder if we can" (to include himself).

[Robert]

Well, I admit you cannot tune a piano or a guitar "perfectly" anyway. That's what tempering is all about. But you can get a hell of a lot closer than Lennon did for that song.

Maybe he did it on purpose to sound more down to earth. Or decided to keep the first take to make it as fresh or "homey" as possible.

The piano in Obladi oblahda is out of tune too. I would take Paul McCartney's word for it if he ever commented on this.

Where did you get that info on the D string? I'm intrigued.

[anticap]

Where did you get that info on the D string? I'm intrigued.

I got it from a TV program on Lennon. Someone who worked with him told a story about how he would tune his guitar properly, but then back off on the D-string just a bit. The person asked him why he did that. If I recall correctly, Lennon told a story about how his aunt, who raised him, had once asked him which of the strumming guitars on an early recording was him. His D-string had been flat on the recording, so he pointed that out to her. I guess he kept doing it in remembrance of her, though I'm fairly certain that he didn't always do it.

[Thirsty Crow]

Perhaps the paradox(contradiction?) of being human leads to these outcomes. As someone like Freud would argue, perhaps we are ultimately not rational creatures.

And yes, I tend to believe that there are biological constraints on human nature that don't allow for a society to function free of some form of entrepreneuriship and voluntary intercourse among its members. Human beings aren't infinitely malleable by whomever wishes to improve social outcomes.

It's nice to see you admit that you are a mystic.
There is no paradox in being human. There have been no evidence obtained scientifically in support of this mystifying argument. And no wonder you tend to believe that since it functions as an ideology under which lie the material interests. You can ramble on and on about "biological constraints" which supposedly interact and reinforce the historical and social phenomenon of entrepreneurship, but the fact remains that this belief of yours functions exacly as the belief that there exists a God in the form of a giant tea pot does. It is meant to support you personal material interests no matter the validity or truthfulness of it.

[trivas7]

It's nice to see you admit that you are a mystic.
There is no paradox in being human. There have been no evidence obtained scientifically in support of this mystifying argument. And no wonder you tend to believe that since it functions as an ideology under which lie the material interests. You can ramble on and on about "biological constraints" which supposedly interact and reinforce the historical and social phenomenon of entrepreneurship, but the fact remains that this belief of yours functions exacly as the belief that there exists a God in the form of a giant tea pot does. It is meant to support you personal material interests no matter the validity or truthfulness of it.
Of course you realize that the right makes the very same claims re the tenets of socialism (http://www.gnostics.com/newdawn-1.html).

[#FF0000]

Of course you realize that the right makes the very same claims re the tenets of socialism (http://www.gnostics.com/newdawn-1.html).

I only skimmed this but, uh, I don't think that's what this article is saying. From what I've read so far it's just discussing the religious factions who were playing along in the Russian Revolution.

Seems interesting tho fwiw

[Bud Struggle]

Trivas--INTERESTING ARTICLE! :)

[Kayser_Soso]

Of course you realize that the right makes the very same claims re the tenets of socialism (http://www.gnostics.com/newdawn-1.html).

The article is absurd- no different from those articles which attempt to claim that the Skull and Bones or Illuminati were behind every major event.

[Thirsty Crow]

Of course the article is absurd, how could it not be when the argument again functions as a myth, this time the myth of hidden, occult origins of communism, which becomes a practical boogey man and plays the emotional card - one of fear. Others have also tried to argue that the roots of Marx's communism in fact lie in religion, but they were more snobbish and supposed that this alone would be enough to discredit Marxism from the viewpoint of scientism. But the evidence keeps eluding them.

Trivas, it is truly pathetic that this is the best you can come up with, a confused article whose main point is driven by a conspiracy theory - that secret societies and sects are behind world events. Without evidence and without any understanding of the function of religion in the October Revolution.

[RGacky3]

Of course you realize that the right makes the very same claims re the tenets of socialism (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.gnostics.com/newdawn-1.html).

And where are the illuminatii in all this? (sarcasm)

[ComradeMan]

And where are the illuminatii in all this? (sarcasm)

I'm waiting for this one.... LOL!!! I suppose it's all a crypto-Communist-Masonic-Zionist plot.... :rolleyes:

[Thirsty Crow]

I'm waiting for this one.... LOL!!! I suppose it's all a crypto-Communist-Masonic-Zionist plot.... :rolleyes:
And don't forget that the bases of communsim are religious consciousness and myths, and not a scientific approach to a socioeconomic formation which results in revolutionary political programme(s). It's so obvious that no rational person could ever accept this. Especially since human nature provides human societies with boundaries regarding their transformation.

[Bud Struggle]

Of course the article is absurd, how could it not be when the argument again functions as a myth, this time the myth of hidden, occult origins of communism, which becomes a practical boogey man and plays the emotional card - one of fear. Others have also tried to argue that the roots of Marx's communism in fact lie in religion, but they were more snobbish and supposed that this alone would be enough to discredit Marxism from the viewpoint of scientism. But the evidence keeps eluding them.

Trivas, it is truly pathetic that this is the best you can come up with, a confused article whose main point is driven by a conspiracy theory - that secret societies and sects are behind world events. Without evidence and without any understanding of the function of religion in the October Revolution.

Did you read the article? First of all it didn't say the roots of Marxian Communism were in in religion. The article was talking about the specifics of the Russian Revolution--why it was supported. The argument is as good as any other out there--it is realistic as believing the Russian people of 1917 had any sort of Class Consciousness.

Second of all it wasn't a conspiracy theory. The article atempted to explain why a seemingly backward country like Russia would go Communist. The Marxist view was that industrial countries like Germany would go Communist first. Actually even Lenin was suprised at this.

[RGacky3]

Second of all it wasn't a conspiracy theory. The article atempted to explain why a seemingly backward country like Russia would go Communist. The Marxist view was that industrial countries like Germany would go Communist first. Actually even Lenin was suprised at this.

The reason the RUssians supported revolution (which unfortunately was betrayed almost immediately), was because they were sick of getting craped on, and oppressed, they wanted an end of the system and the promise of socialism and freedom.

I persoanlly think the Marxist view of splitting up the oppressed classes and trying to pin point their interests and base predicionts on that is flawed, there are many factors that contribute to a full fledged revolution and also the type of revolution.

It had nothing to do with Marxism, in the sense that workers were not joining the revolt based on the tennants of marxism, it was the same reason people supported Obama, Change, hope, unfortunately they made the same mistake, they trusted power.

Be very very skeptical about any explination that tries to talk about overall consciousness of people or some sort of abstract ideology, you have to start with the material context and material conditions.

[Bud Struggle]

The reason the RUssians supported revolution (which unfortunately was betrayed almost immediately), was because they were sick of getting craped on, and oppressed, they wanted an end of the system and the promise of socialism and freedom.
I agree with that--and the article makes a case that some of the Russians were predisposed to that notion because of a particular religions mindset. No different than the Liberation Theology mindset in other parts of the world heightens social conciousness for justice.


I persoanlly think the Marxist view of splitting up the oppressed classes and trying to pin point their interests and base predicionts on that is flawed, there are many factors that contribute to a full fledged revolution and also the type of revolution. I'll agree there.


It had nothing to do with Marxism, in the sense that workers were not joining the revolt based on the tennants of marxism, it was the same reason people supported Obama, Change, hope, unfortunately they made the same mistake, they trusted power. I think the Communists in Russia promised a lot more than Obama--so they fell a lot further. But good analogy.


Be very very skeptical about any explination that tries to talk about overall consciousness of people or some sort of abstract ideology, you have to start with the material context and material conditions.I think it's more than the material. There are BILLIONS of people with nothing in the world and 99% of them wouldn't think of revolting. There's more to it than envy (which is just another word for material context.)

[Hoipolloi Cassidy]

What has allowed societies to develop art, culture, inventions and so on depends mostly on there being a surplus created by that society. , etc.etc.

You're starting from the very capitalist assumption that use-value is subsumed by exchange-value, since the world is ruled by SCARCITY and DEMAND. Like Adam Smith and Ricardo you have to argue that artistic creation has no "use." It has no use, of course, in a system like that fantasized by Smith and Ricardo. Fortunately, there have been plenty of worlds where being a poet or musician has been a form of labor like any other - in fact, most every world was like that until about 1789 in Europe. Read Paul Werner's "The Red Museum," it's coming out on Monday.

The Russian poet Osip Mandelshtam ended up in a Soviet labor camp in 1938 - The Gov't had no use for somebody who couldn't produce the right opinions, not to mention the poem he circulated calling Stalin a butcher. The last person who saw him alive wrote that Mandelshtam had been rescued in the camp by the criminal gangs, who swaddled him up against the cold and secreted him in the ceiling of the barracks, where they paid homage to him as their poet. I guess these guys had a "use" for him, after all...

[trivas7]

Trivas, it is truly pathetic that this is the best you can come up with, a confused article whose main point is driven by a conspiracy theory - that secret societies and sects are behind world events. Without evidence and without any understanding of the function of religion in the October Revolution.
The article is just one of many claims made that socialism exhibits all the characteristics of a religion. (http://www.skepticaleye.com/2009/06/socialism-and-religion-similarities.html)

[Dean]

Thinking re the anniversary of the death of John Lennon -- a visionary if there ever was one -- it strikes me that the dreaded thought most rev leftists refuse to admit is that perhaps the working class is not capable of managing its own affairs. That workers have the need for entrepreneurial skills and the talents of visionaries, pioneers, and the crazies in art and science that have made the most contributions to the way the world looks today (if you think Lennon could have existed in a socialist world, look again). Entrepreneurism and voluntarism are the goals of any rational society; where in a socialist world do they fit in?

What makes you think visionaries, pioneers and 'crazies' wouldn't have access to the means to produce their revolutionary works? Contrarily, the deficit of such means held by those who would productively use them is precisely what socialists seek to eliminate.

This strikes me as little more than another ignorant attack on socialism from a mystical position - you certainly feel like innovation isn't "rewarded" in socialist society, so it follows that socialist society doesn't empower those who seek to help others with their works.

[Thirsty Crow]

The article is just one of many claims made that socialism exhibits all the characteristics of a religion (http://books.google.com/books?id=KllHAAAAIAAJ&pg=PR13&lpg=PR13&dq=socialism+as+religion&source=bl&ots=vKgfSX9ljQ&sig=7tmnIxy28yzREpmyrTOqYZ1SyLA&hl=en&ei=PgIFTbnBJ4_EsAP_vq3VDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CEQQ6AEwCDgy#v=onepage&q&f=false). (http://mises.org/misesreview_detail.aspx?control=297)
As I made it clear in the previous posts - yes, I'm aware of this nonsensical claims.
The fact remains: your argument is wholly a myth, and totally removed from reality.

[trivas7]

What makes you think visionaries, pioneers and 'crazies' wouldn't have access to the means to produce their revolutionary works? Contrarily, the deficit of such means held by those who would productively use them is precisely what socialists seek to eliminate.

Lenin once said that he was afraid to listen to Beethoven because the music made him feel like caressing the people's heads when he needed to beat them. The plight of the artist under totalitarianism is a familiar subject.

[Dean]

Lenin once said that he was afraid to listen to Beethoven because the music made him feel like caressing the people's heads when he needed to beat them. The plight of the artist under totalitarianism is a familiar subject.

Right. That's why capitalism is such a bad atmosphere for artistry.

[#FF0000]

The article is just one of many claims made that socialism exhibits all the characteristics of a religion. (http://www.skepticaleye.com/2009/06/socialism-and-religion-similarities.html)

Claims like this are made by people who don't want to or can't socialists intellectually. This is pure ad hominem.


1) Socialism and religion are both completely unproven dogmas that have zero actual evidence to back them up. In fact, there is plenty of evidence against both.

This is nonsense. Socialists have arguments and facts to back their positions. This is asinine.


2) Socialism and religion both promise that we can eventually reach a state of "heaven." And in the process, they've both brought us hell on Earth. Socialists and theists have yet to apologize for all the atrocities their belief systems have generated. If you point to the Soviet Union, socialists will answer that it wasn't "real" socialism. If you point to hideous rights violations in Middle Eastern countries, you'll be told that "real" Islam is a "peaceful" religion, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

1) No one is saying a socialist/communist society will be heaven. It will be fairer, sure, but I still believe we'll be dealing with issues of racism and sexism well after a socialist revolution.
2) This guy is completely ignorant of history if he thinks that the state of the Middle East today is because of Islam.
3) Socialists all have very different answers about the Soviet Union.


3) Socialism and religion both maintain that everything would be chaos without central planning running the show. But in reality, neither the economy nor the universe could ever be "planned." Both are just the result of a ton of spontaneous shit happening. This lack of control horrifies both socialists and theists.

lol no we don't.


4) Socialists and theists both believe that those of us who simply laugh at their dumb beliefs are evil and working against all that is good and right. We are trapped in the hands of Satan, or in the pay of the "capitalist class" (defined as anyone who works for a living).

No we don't. We think that they're too dumb to engage us in an actual discussion.


5) Socialism and religion both fulfill a similar psychological need: the need to believe in a "higher power," or the "common good." Neither exist, but they are both comforting to believe in. Comforting lies are always far more pleasant than the truth.

This can be said for ANY political affiliation. Politics can give someone an identity, a feeling of purpose...etc. It isn't fair to say this criticism to make of just socialism.

[RGacky3]

I agree with that--and the article makes a case that some of the Russians were predisposed to that notion because of a particular religions mindset. No different than the Liberation Theology mindset in other parts of the world heightens social conciousness for justice.


See that was waht I disagreed with, the desire for justice and the desire to have control over your own destiny and to end oppression is universal, when things are bad people want to change them, now in a secular society that might come about in the form of atheistic Marxism in places like latin America that might come about in the form of Liberation theology, also keep in mind the people pushing for revolution in Russia were secular marxists, in laint American it was liberation theologists. So I don't buy that argument at all.

EVERYONE, not just people with a religious background, wants to have some sort of social justice.


I think it's more than the material. There are BILLIONS of people with nothing in the world and 99% of them wouldn't think of revolting. There's more to it than envy (which is just another word for material context.)

Envy is not what I mean by material context, what I mean is the economic background of the area, the power divide, history and so on.

In America alone I'm guessing that majority of the population would revolt (i.e. change the power structure) if they were given that option. The reason most people in the world would'nt think of revolting is because chances are it would mean their deaths or everything they've worked hard to scrape together taken away.

See thats what I mean by material context, you see most people not revolting so you assume it must be just because they don't want too, I take the material context in to account, i.e. what are the conditions, what are the causes and effects of actions, what situation are people in? What kind of mindset is that situation condusive too. If you don't take context into account you end up coming up with rediculous conclusions that are clearly wrong.

[GPDP]

Oh look, another ridiculous thread by trollias7 where he goes in, makes snide pot-shots at socialism, and refuses to even attempt to engage in any meaningful discussion. How nice.

Also, re re re re re re re re re re re re re

I feel so much intellectual by spamming those two letters huehuehuehuehue

[GPDP]

http://img692.imageshack.us/img692/7859/trivias7.jpg

Every trivias thread ever.

[Bud Struggle]

http://img692.imageshack.us/img692/7859/trivias7.jpg

Every trivias thread ever.

This is not right.

Trivas posted what he posted--people are discussing--agree, don't agree. If it was a crap post no one would chime in--but this blatant slamming is just uncalled for. I think I'm in the middle of a pretty decent discussion because of it.

If this is the best you can do to refute Trivas's point--maybe he does have something important to say.

[RGacky3]

This is not right.

Trivas posted what he posted--people are discussing--agree, don't agree. If it was a crap post no one would chime in--but this blatant slamming is just uncalled for. I think I'm in the middle of a pretty decent discussion because of it.

If this is the best you can do to refute Trivas's point--maybe he does have something important to say.

We're not saying its a crap post, were saying that he puts up something completely baseless, and refuses to back it up or engage in any discussion after its done, all he does is make baseless claims to start something without defending it or anything.

[GPDP]

This is not right.

Trivas posted what he posted--people are discussing--agree, don't agree. If it was a crap post no one would chime in--but this blatant slamming is just uncalled for. I think I'm in the middle of a pretty decent discussion because of it.

If this is the best you can do to refute Trivas's point--maybe he does have something important to say.

Then carry on with your discussion. I am not stopping you.

I posted that because I could care less what trivias has to say when all he does amounts to petty trolling. I disagree with what you have to say, for instance, but I don't denounce you because you actually bother to argue your points. Same with, say, Skooma Addict. For that, I happen to have some modicum of respect for you two. I have no respect to give to blatant antagonists like trivias.

To sum it up, I have no interest in refuting points if the person making them shows absolutely no interest in engaging in a fruitful discussion, and in fact appears to make them for the sole purpose of stirring a shitstorm. For that kind of person, ridicule will do.

[Bud Struggle]

Then carry on with your discussion. I am not stopping you.

I posted that because I could care less what trivias has to say when all he does amounts to petty trolling. I disagree with what you have to say, for instance, but I don't denounce you because you actually bother to argue your points. Same with, say, Skooma Addict. For that, I happen to have some modicum of respect for you two. I have no respect to give to blatant antagonists like trivias.

I understand. But Triv isn't the chattiest guy around. But the point he brings up are in a way quite interesting. Around here you have to take what people give you and make the best of what they have to say. He has interesting thoughts--he just doesn't follow up.

Nobody's perfect. I don't think he MEANS to troll. I guess you think differently.

Hell, let's ask him:

Triv--what is your point? What do you believe and why?

[GPDP]

Nobody's perfect. I don't think he MEANS to troll. I guess you think differently.

Hanging around the many dark corners of the internet, you tend to pick up on these things. I know his kind. They post something they know will cause controversy, then sit back and watch the shitstorm unfold, occasionally chiming in to add a bit more fuel to the fire without actually getting into a drawn-out argument, for he has everyone else to do that for him. I've seen it a million times.

And again, even IF he didn't mean to troll, randomly bringing up points, interesting or not, does not make for good discussion if he does not bother to support them or engage in discussion about them. I see it done on other boards here, and it is annoying. Perhaps not to the point of meriting ridicule, granted, but certainly some form of criticism. But I think trivias knows exactly what he's doing, so I have no interest in criticizing what he says.

[RGacky3]

He has interesting thoughts--he just doesn't follow up.

Nobody's perfect. I don't think he MEANS to troll. I guess you think differently.

Hell, let's ask him:

Triv--what is your point? What do you believe and why?

If you bring up a point, its responded to, you don't defend it or argue or discuss it, but a week later you just bring it up again, your a troll.

[Bud Struggle]

Sorrybut I guess I don't "pile on" with everyone else. Maybe that's why I'm not a Communiust.

[Revolution starts with U]

^ simply not true... although it must be hard to notice cuz you really only have like 3 friends here

[Bud Struggle]

^ simply not true... although it must be hard to notice cuz you really only have like 3 friends here

I have 130 friends on my Friends List, you have four. But no matter--I'm not here for friends, I object to people piling on Triv in the same way I object to people misidentifying Redstar as a Capitalist. It's the same reason I don't call people morons or idiots.

If you don't like something people say attack the idea--NOT the person.

[GPDP]

I have 130 friends on my Friends List, you have four. But no matter--I'm not here for friends, I object to people piling on Triv in the same way I object to people misidentifying Redstar as a Capitalist. It's the same reason I don't call people morpns or idiots.

If you don't like something people say attack the idea--NOT the person.

I don't attack trivias because I don't like what he has to say (though suffice it to say what he has to say is shit), I attack him because I straight up don't like trolls, especially if they're unfunny.

[Bud Struggle]

I don't attack trivias because I don't like what he has to say (though suffice it to say what he has to say is shit), I attack him because I straight up don't like trolls, especially if they're unfunny.

I respect you and your posts--we disagree here.

But admittedly--funny is alway better. :D

[Jimmie Higgins]

, etc.etc.

You're starting from the very capitalist assumption that use-value is subsumed by exchange-value, since the world is ruled by SCARCITY and DEMAND. Like Adam Smith and Ricardo you have to argue that artistic creation has no "use." It has no use, of course, in a system like that fantasized by Smith and Ricardo. Fortunately, there have been plenty of worlds where being a poet or musician has been a form of labor like any other - in fact, most every world was like that until about 1789 in Europe. Read Paul Werner's "The Red Museum," it's coming out on Monday.

The Russian poet Osip Mandelshtam ended up in a Soviet labor camp in 1938 - The Gov't had no use for somebody who couldn't produce the right opinions, not to mention the poem he circulated calling Stalin a butcher. The last person who saw him alive wrote that Mandelshtam had been rescued in the camp by the criminal gangs, who swaddled him up against the cold and secreted him in the ceiling of the barracks, where they paid homage to him as their poet. I guess these guys had a "use" for him, after all...I think you are misrepresenting or misinterpreting my argument. I am not saying that I thinkart has to have some specific defined social use - I argue for exact opposite: in favor of the democratization of skills and the tools to create art, science, crafts or whatever. I would like to see art become more integrated into our everyday lives and the distinction between those who have the means and time and access to learning needed to become a fully realized artist. But the question is how do you achieve this, I believe it can not really be realized until people get to collectively control and make decisions about our collective surplus.

While I think art itself is "immaterial" in that the subject of art exists outside of the material world, artists themselves are material and the way a society is structured determines all sorts of things from what art can be made and be self-sustaining for the art-producer, who has access to schooling or just the free-time to develop their skills, etc.

A surplus is necessary for art in a very concrete way - if you are not gathering enough food to support yourself, how do you have the time or energy to find berries or the right clay to create anything. In capitalism, there is not the bare scarcity of some other societies, so there is no real reason for the surplus to be concentrated in the hands of a minority and therefore the fruits of that surplus, art, culture, just free-time and joy of life should not be monopolized, controlled and channeled into pro-capitalist avenues like the high-art market or elite architecture or art schools.

To think that "artists" exist outside of material circumstances is just idealism. People might have a propensity towards visual recreation or music or whatnot, but if any of these inherent differences exist in individuals, it's not as decisive as education and experience.

One of my pet peeves is the idea that "everyone is an artist". It's bullshit in capitalism - even most people who show in galleries are not really artists, most of the time they are art professors who teach in order to peruse their art. I like to create things, but I am not an "artist" - I barely have an audience and I make probably $200 a year doing it. So, objectively, I am NOT an artist, though I create "art". I think that one consequence of a working class rule of society will have to be the liberation of art and culture - freeing it from the demands of a minority ruling class so it can really speak to all of humanity... and so that all of humanity has the chance to develop their own skills like a select few in class societies have been able to do.

Just an end to the tedium and uncreative atmosphere of the workplace would increase people's time and drive for creative production ... I know I was much more creative in college or now on the weekends or after a short vaccation than I am after an 8-hour shift of monotonous work in a uniform where creativity is penalized for "not following company protocol".

[RGacky3]

Sorrybut I guess I don't "pile on" with everyone else. Maybe that's why I'm not a Communiust.


Thats because your a Capitalist patriot on a revolutoinary leftist website.

[Revolution starts with U]

Ya sry bud, I guess what I said came out wrong.. cuz that ^ is what I meant :blushing:

[ComradeMan]

Thats because your a Capitalist patriot on a revolutoinary leftist website.

How can you be a patriot of capitalism? I was not aware that capitalism was a patria. :lol:

Or do you mean a US patriot and a capitalist? Are the two necessarily hand in hand?

[RGacky3]

Thats what I meant, and no they arn't necessarily hand in hand, but they are in the person of Bud Struggle, your reading too much between the lines.

[Bud Struggle]

Thats what I meant, and no they arn't necessarily hand in hand, but they are in the person of Bud Struggle, your reading too much between the lines.

There really should be a stickied "Bud Struggle" thread. :D

[Ele'ill]

There really should be a stickied "Bud Struggle" thread. :D


They have one waiting for each and every one of you in the miserable users area