Bloodless revolution [Archive]

sc4r

27th August 2003, 07:54

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2003, 01:46 AM
Genuine revolutions historically have not been particularly "bloody" events...though civil wars are extraordinarily bloody.

What "blood" is shed is usually that of the old ruling class...so naturally their accounts are full of horror at the "barbarous" behavior of their "inferiors".

Mark Twain got it right: "People express outrage at the 4 years of terror inflicted by the people on the aristocrats during the French Revolution; they are silent on the 1,000 years of terror inflicted on the people by the aristocracy."

As to the "parliamentary road to socialism", it doesn't work even if it "does"...that is, you probably won't ever be allowed to "win" a bourgeois election and, even if you were allowed to win, you would not be allowed to actually change anything of substance.

Strictly a dead end.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas
Depends what you mean by 'revolution'. If you choose to define it in the weak sense of simply meaning sudden dramatic change then obviously it does not hav to imply blood being spilt.

But the word was only used in this way originally as a metaphor.

Its a bit more than metaphor to use it without the connutations of violence nowadays, but the reality is that people like yourself quite deliberately use the word to add a false sense of glamour to your proposals (you have stated that your 'revolution may take 500 years. LOL Thats the slowest 'revolt' probably ever in history).

Anyone honest would never use the word 'revolution' to describe a political change which did not involve considerable violence. It would be inappropriate to do so.

Redstar also seem to think that the blood of 'bosses' is different from other sorts. He seems to think almost that we are distinct races. The truth is that in a first world economy you be hard pushed to find anyone employed who was not, in part at least, a 'boss' in some sesne, and equally you would find very very few people who were fully 'independent agents'. Today we are almost all 'petit bourgeois', or middle class; a fact which has often been remarked upon, because it is largely true (and frankly self evident to all but the terminally obsessive).

If you want to find people who approximate to Marx's notion of 'the proletariat' today you have to look at the third world. While the functions of his individual 'bourgeoisies' have very largely been taken over not by individuals but by corporations, which having no directly human personality behave and react somewhat diferently.

Marx is, and should be, a fantastic source for insights and general ideas; but it is wrong to see his analysis as totally appropriate today because economic dynamics and even entities are not as they were in his day. Strangely both Anarchists and extreme Socialist Activitists recognise this in their actions (when they nearly always attack corporations) but not in their words and slogans (which still personalise 'the enemy').

The enemy of 'socialism' today really is the system of liberal democracy (call it capitalism if you like). You cannot usually attack a system in the same way you attack individual people because the very people you are hoping to recruit are part of that system. in Cuba in 1950 the situation was different, because it was in effect an old Marxist style 'capitalist state' with well defined 'Proletariat' and 'bourgeois' classes. You will find the same in a number of 'developing countries'' but not in the first world.

Another way of looking at this would be to say that while many individuals in the first world regard Socialism as their enemy the converse is not , or should not be true. This is a hard, and a very non intuitive, thing to grasp, but it is true nonetheless. The man who opposes my ideals does not have to characterised by me as my enemy. He is my potential friend, he just does not know it.

Love and Kisses to all except some.

Scar.

Cassius Clay

27th August 2003, 09:42

The believe that the Capitalists somehow need to be 'provoked' into unleashing the full power of the state against the people is wrong, what's more history should teach us that if we ever get into a posistion of being a group/party with mass support we should 'expect no mercy because we shall recieve none'. Look at Spain in 1936 the Army immediantly pulled out a coup, in Chile they did the same despite the fact that Allende was doing his best not to seem 'radical. Even negotiations are very 'risky', the leader of the PKK in Turkey/Kurdistan started to talk to the Turkish Government and before you could say revolution he was murdered. The Capitalist class would have tanks out on the streets whether we 'played nice' or not. Infact thier more likely to if we take a 'peaceful' road.

mentalbunny

27th August 2003, 10:05

sc4r, once again I find myself agreeing with you!

peterb

27th August 2003, 12:04

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2003, 05:26 PM
Is it possible to have a succesful revolution where no one gets killed?
It may be possible to have a model for achieving revolutionary change in the U.K. which avoids violence. It is also possible that a socialist party unites workers in a programme which would break capitalism and that those demands and ideals could win through in a parliamentary election. It is also likely that the state would resist those demands forcefully and workers would have to fight back to defend their gains. Revolutionary advance will need to be defended but that is not the same as supposing that an ultra-left violent campaign is the only way to secure the overthrow of capitalism.
Those of us who want democratic workers control cannot adopt violence as a tactic in order to win it. Once won I personally believe it should be defended forcefully but it is workers democracy we will be defending, not the power of a party. I do not want to replace one oppressive state with another! If a violent campaign kicked off in the U.K. it is most unlikely that it would attract mass support. It would also create the opportunity for the most ruthless "leadership" to step in. It would be totally counter-productive.When a socialist party with a popular revolutionary programme is prevented from taking power by the state it will be clear what we are struggling to achieve. Democratic workers control gives real power to our people and it is unlikely that the champions of violent struggle would deliver.

redstar2000

28th August 2003, 02:01

Anyone honest would never use the word 'revolution' to describe a political change which did not involve considerable violence. It would be inappropriate to do so.

Why? So you too can "wave the bloody shirt", saying "follow me" because redstar is "violent" and "wants" to see people killed?

Peaceful reform is so much "nicer", so much "more British", right, squire?

Redstar also seem to think that the blood of 'bosses' is different from other sorts. He seems to think almost that we are distinct races. The truth is that in a first world economy you be hard pushed to find anyone employed who was not, in part at least, a 'boss' in some sense, and equally you would find very very few people who were fully 'independent agents'. Today we are almost all 'petit bourgeois', or middle class; a fact which has often been remarked upon, because it is largely true (and frankly self evident to all but the terminally obsessive).

I love that careful qualifying phrase "in some sense".

No, there are no "class enemies" in sc4r's golden fields of bourgeois "liberal" democracy. We're all just happy folks sitting around the plantation, having a nice little sing-along.

It's just so beautiful...it brings a tear to my eye.

The man who opposes my ideals does not have to characterised by me as my enemy. He is my potential friend, he just does not know it.

As I noted in another thread: your attitude is belligerence towards the left and appeaser towards the right. Will you have Rupert Murdoch in for tea, then?

sc4r, once again I find myself agreeing with you!

Mentalbunny will join you both...perhaps adding a little "tone" to the gathering.

Those of us who want democratic workers control cannot adopt violence as a tactic in order to win it.

Why not?

If a violent campaign kicked off in the U.K. it is most unlikely that it would attract mass support.

Now it would not. That's why I think that some of the "urban guerrilla warfare" schemes that have been bruited about here are foolish.

What will be the situation in 20 years? 50 years? 100 years?

When a socialist party with a popular revolutionary programme is prevented from taking power by the state it will be clear what we are struggling to achieve.

It may be "clear", but it will be too damn late. You cannot spend decades telling people to "trust" the processes of bourgeois democracy and then suddenly turn around and call for revolution...and expect anyone to respond to your call.

If you tell people from the beginning that revolution is inevitable, then by the time material conditions put revolution on the agenda, people will understand that. Indeed, even if you are not around to "lead" it, the revolution will happen anyway.

It [revolutionary violence] would also create the opportunity for the most ruthless "leadership" to step in.

That's a real danger, no question about it. Should we therefore abandon revolutionary violence? Or should we do all in our power to discredit the idea of revolution as a "play", stage-managed by "vanguardists"?

If we can tell people that revolution is inevitable, why can't we also warn them against those who would try to take over their revolution "in the name of the revolution"?

Besides which, I think in 50 years Leninism will likely be a dead issue anyway.

I am doing my best to kill it. :lol:

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

[b]"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

LightningCount

30th August 2003, 00:54

Hell no there's always going to be some imbecile who thinks he/she is protecting the right side an thinks your just a stupid terrorist/crazy radical. History has already answered your question. Would be nice but it can never be that simple.

Morpheus

30th August 2003, 01:32

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2003, 07:54 AM
Anyone honest would never use the word 'revolution' to describe a political change which did not involve considerable violence. It would be inappropriate to do so.
This is completely ahistorical. The term revolution was first used in a political sense to refer to the Glorious Revolution in England - where the parliament chose to replace on Monarch with another (this was years after the civil war and Cromwell and all that). It was completely peacefull. Another name for this event is the bloodless revolution. To claim that revolution automatically means considerable violence is completely ahistorical; it was originally coined to describe an event which did not involve considerable violence.

It is true that subsequent revolutions have sometimes been bloody, but not all of them. The revolutions in East Europe & Russia which brought about the downfall of the Soviet Empire were not very bloody. The Portugesse revolution in the 70s was not terribly violent, either. Nor was the fall of Marcos. Or the February Revolution in Russia. Even in cases where revolutions are violent, the civil wars that sometimes come about because of them are typically far far more violent than the revolution itself.

sc4r

30th August 2003, 07:55

I assume you are talking of James II and his replacement with William of orange.

First of the events that lead up to the actual moment of change were pretty bloody (they included of course not only the english civil war but also Charles having his bloody head cut off.

Secondly although William did not actually have to fight this was only because he came rather well prepared with a big army and effectively scared James shitless.

Thirdly it is somewhat ironic that, in a post intended to say that revolution does not usually imply bloodshed, you quite happily say that this )supposedly first usage of the term 'revolution' in politics) is called 'the bloodless revolution'. Maybe you did not spot it but the word 'revolution is rather strongly modified by the prefix. Something that would not be neccessary if the word itself did not by itself imply blood.

I have no idea if the word 'revolution' was ever used before Jamess was deposed. Can you honestly tell me that you have genuionely researched the genealogy? It doesn't actually matter all that much because today it most certainly does imply violence.

Redstar you irritating clown -

Peaceful reform is indeed nicer. Do you actually want a bloody one for its own sake ? But its pretty irrelevant because a) I advocate the type of change I do because it might actually work, not because it is is peaceful per se b) I actually very much doubt that it would be peaceable. Just because I reckon that one step in implementing socialism is to achieve ballot box success does not mean that I think that everyone will simply accept that result peaceably.

Is it the best you can do to nitpick meanings and demand absolute statements ?

'Almost everyone is a boss in some sense' means (very obviously) that it is possible that some people might have a narrow definition of the word 'boss' which would allow them to be excluded from the characterisation. I only had to use the phrase 'in some sense' because your usage of 'boss' is itself so vague that it is impossible to be sure what you actually mean by it, or who you might be including.

your 'argument' is not only pedantic in the extreme but desparate.

I could as easily have said 'Almost everyone is involved in bourgoise activity, everyone is motivated in some part by bourgeois concerns'. Frankly I doubt anyone did not understand this was what I meant. I used 'boss' because thats the word you were using. Its called dialogue matey; something you would not really grasp.

Fidelbrand

30th August 2003, 08:22

Recent example-----> Hong Kong.

The Article 23 which tries to restrict potential / existing dissidents' acts was proposed to be enacted on schedule on 9th ,July 2003. But there were HUGE protests, some 600000 people crowded on the streets!! The governement had to re-schedule the time schedule of the enactment & to ask the public for opinions instead of having the law discussed only in the legislative council.

The Hong Kong people really impressed me~ as i thought they were just genuine cappies with less guts~

Saint-Just

30th August 2003, 15:09

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2003, 08:22 AM
Recent example-----> Hong Kong.

The Article 23 which tries to restrict potential / existing dissidents' acts was proposed to be enacted on schedule on 9th ,July 2003. But there were HUGE protests, some 600000 people crowded on the streets!! The governement had to re-schedule the time schedule of the enactment & to ask the public for opinions instead of having the law discussed only in the legislative council.

The Hong Kong people really impressed me~ as i thought they were just genuine cappies with less guts~
They are capitalists in the main. I do not have much praise for the CPC though.

Morpheus

30th August 2003, 22:19

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2003, 07:55 AM
I have no idea if the word 'revolution' was ever used before Jamess was deposed. Can you honestly tell me that you have genuionely researched the genealogy? It doesn't actually matter all that much because today it most certainly does imply violence.
I didn't research the genealogy, Professor Karl Griewank did and he wrote an article called "Emergence of the Concept of Revolution" which appears in the book Why Revolution? Theories and Analyses edited by Clifford T. Paynton & Robert Blackey, which I purchased in a used book store many years ago. The term "revolution" was earlier used, before it's use in a political/social sense, in astronomy and the sciences, where it meant motion around a center or axis (as in the revolutions per second of a wheel) ie. rotation.

"The most important step in the history of the term [revolution] was was the event which permanently introduced the word revolution into historical writing and political theory - the Glorious Revolution of 1688. ... the event, which brought about lasting political changes with far less internal turmoil, was unequivocally labelled a revolution. ... By calling it the Glorious Revolution they meant that it was really just one more change of soveriegns, albeit one that had taken place in circumstances reflecting glory on the king and on the nation" - p. 20

Merriam Webster defines revolution (in the political/social sense) as:

a : a sudden, radical, or complete change
b : a fundamental change in political organization; especially : the overthrow or renunciation of one government or ruler and the substitution of another by the governed
c : activity or movement designed to effect fundamental changes in the socioeconomic situation
d : a fundamental change in the way of thinking about or visualizing something : a change of paradigm <the Copernican revolution>
e : a changeover in use or preference especially in technology <the computer revolution> <the foreign car revolution>

Nothing in here implies extreme violence. Those who equate revolution with extreme violence are apologists for the status quo (and their dupes) who want to make radical change look bad. This is quite hypocritical, since the status quo is extremely violent (including your "peacefull reforms").

sc4r

31st August 2003, 07:28

With all due respect Miriam webster's is not defining revolution only in the social / political sense. The extract shows it's definition of the word in general with only two of the five definition statements referring to what is broadly called politics.

Nor do dictionaries commonly list all the implied characteristics of any word. They tend to give only the broadest explanation.

Look up 'Capitalist' in any dictionary and you wont find ur saying that it implies greedy selfishness or Liberal property rights; but it certainly does.

Presenting dictinary definitions of fairly complex concepts is both a common internet last resort, and entirely inappropriate to a serious discussion. You can use a dictionary to show (usually) that someone may be using a word wrongly in the sense of leaving out part of what it means or totally mis-using it; but a dictionary definition can never be taken to mean that other characteristics not mentioned by the dictionary are excluded. A dictionary gives you a way of determining what is neccessary for for a word to be correctly used; it does not invariably tell you what is sufficient.

best wishes.

Conghaileach

31st August 2003, 17:02

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2003, 08:55 AM
I assume you are talking of James II and his replacement with William of orange.
The bloodless revolution was the restoration of the monacrhy and the rise of Charles II to the English throne.

The war between James II and William of Orange over who'd be king of England occurred 30 years later.

sc4r

1st September 2003, 07:10

Originally posted by CiaranB+Aug 31 2003, 05:02 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (CiaranB @ Aug 31 2003, 05:02 PM)
[email protected] 30 2003, 08:55 AM
I assume you are talking of James II and his replacement with William of orange.
The bloodless revolution was the restoration of the monacrhy and the rise of Charles II to the English throne.

The war between James II and William of Orange over who'd be king of England occurred 30 years later. [/b]
Thanks. In that case the original comment I was replying to did not make sense as he was talking of replacing one monarch with another.

The Feral Underclass

1st September 2003, 18:15

I started coming on this message board because I thought it would be fresh and interesting, and you could exchange ideas on how to build a movement with like minded people. But alas, all there seems to be are namby pampy sentimental fluffy utopian cowards. I dont mean to sound arrogant, but my god what the fuck are you people!

To be honest, reading some of these threads you kinda wonder whos side your fighting for. I dont really think any of you (with a few exceptions) really understand what capitalism is. How can you make such theoretical decisions about fighting something you obviously no nothing about?

Some of you come out with the most rediculas bollocks. An example...

is full scale revolution possible in the UK at all? Maybe some really dedicated people will be able to get past MI5 and cause a coup but I reckon that's about it

This is the fifth time I have started this sentance and really. I just dont know where to begin. This proves my point that you people really have know idea about what capitalism is. "Dedicated people..." such as whom. "Get apst MI5". What does that acutally mean. MI5 not just some local council organization. It is a state machine. Oiled and funded by the state, to protect the state. It is a highly organized, highly trained systamatic machine, with extremely intelligent people working in it. You don't "get past MI5..". Did you really think about this when you wrote it.

"Cause a coup...". Who would stage this coup. What would the coup be. It certainly wouldnt be about the emancipation of the working class would it. A group of army officers, MI5 operatives. A selected few using force, for what?

You dont make any sense. Is this an objective analysis of capitalism and how you fight it? Is this what the movement has become? :(

there is no possible way for the UK to undergo a full scale revolution, for it would have to be small, discreet, and would have to take time

Then how the fuck are we supposed to free the working class from the bullshit they find themselevs in....no! wait, there is an explination!

it would have to be political, not a war
you would have to get the socialists to gain the majority in parliament somehow

Parliment! Oh, the shining light...How could i be so naive. Of course...Parliment. What have I been doing all this time. Why didnt I just become an MP... :angry:

What is parliment. What the fuck is it? I may have been in a daydream but I always thought that parliment was a room where rich white men, with some token black women, who are equally as rich, sit around shouting "hear hear" at each other and slag the opposition off. Is it a place where the interests of the working class are put on the forefront of politicians minds. Is it a place where the vulnarable are helped. No, of course it fucking well isnt. It is a room where capitalism is preserved, on principle. By capitalists. Walk into whitehall, into any government department building. Take the elevator to the top floor and you will see a big door. And on it will read "The Secret Leaders Of The World". Walk into it, and you will find yet another room with rich white men in it, preserving capitalism and trampling on the lives of working class people. Only this time, there not elected, adn they get to stay there until they die, and get fancy titles like Under Secretery of Fucking poor people in their asses. Yes, your right, their the hidden army of civil servants who keep the wheels grinding.

Oh, but this great "stratigic planning" as it is later called goes on...

first Scotland, then Ireland(although not part of the UK, but still a strong influence), and then Wales, then finally England
it would be a long, strenuous process

What does your new government plan to do. Tell me how you are going to end wage slavery. Tell me how you are going to tame the bosses. The rich capitalists. Are you going to kindly ask them to re distrabute their wealth. As soon as your pseudo-socialist policies begin to take effect you will be rained back in or shot down. As soon as the bosses even see a glimer of losing power, that will be the end of you. Scandel after scandel will plague your government. Alagations of corruption, ministers being accused of child abuse. And the public believe it. They follow the press. Because while you have been trying to reform capitalism you have forgotten about the real people, who by this time have been dragged into sensationalist bollox by the bourgeoisie. And then suddenly your prime minister is in a car accident. Dies. And then we get some other bloke in who is prepared to defend the rights of the bosses. And what have you changed? Absolutly nothing! except discredited the left for another three hundred years.

Come on you people...look at what capitalism is. What it is capable of. It is an animal, controlled by monsters whos only aim in life is to bleed the working class for every penny they have. Look around the world. Look at indonesia. There are people working 24hour shifts with a a four hour break in the middle for a doller. This is capitalism. Do you really think you can tame it. Pull in the raions and put a pretty bow around its neck and send it back into the world.

Whether its possible or not I am unsure about, however a bloodless revolution is the only way in the UK, the capitalists would just love an excuse to set the military to kill the violant revolutionarys

Oh, how depressing. Of course a revolution is possible. Not only is it possible, but it is inevitable. The only way we can get rid of capitalism is if we smash it. We have to get rid of the capitalists. Not because we want to kill people are see lots of blood, but because the simple truth is, its us or them. The only way to free workers from wage slavery is by organizing them into a mass movement and taking them onto the streets. If once we get there the police arre not there with their battons, and MI5 are not assasinating our leaders and trying to smash us, then hurray, we have done a good job. however. lets be realistic about this, that is just not going to happen is it. The police will be there, with guns and so will the army, and then we have to defend ourselves. how do we defend ourselves. When a solider is charging at you with a knife to try and sway him with the conviction of your argument. "excuse me nice solider can I just have ten minutes to tell you how nice my idea is". No! You pick up a knife and stab him first. Then you stab the next soldier and the next soldier until the revolution has been won and the working class can live freely.

I am sure some of you will look at this and say "oh my...he's a savage". But to you people, I say, Vive La Revolution! :ph34r:

mentalbunny

1st September 2003, 21:38

Excuse me Mr Libertarian Communist, you really think I'm so naive as to not understand the efficiency of MI5? The maybe was a one in a million chance, not 50/50 or anything! Basically hypothetical, not at all realistic.

I was not talking about how to fight capitalism, of course it wouldn't work that way, did you really think I meant that? I'm just talking about the situation in the UK at the mo, not about how to really change things.

My problem with revolution is that I believe that people should not kill each other, it seems wrong to decide that you have more of a right to live than someone else, and therefore you can kill them.

The Feral Underclass

2nd September 2003, 10:13

FOR GOD SAKE MAN! Do any of you listen.....

My problem with revolution is that I believe that people should not kill each other, it seems wrong to decide that you have more of a right to live than someone else, and therefore you can kill them.

This is not only sentimental bullshit but complete misunderstanding. It isn't about killing, it is about defence. Revolutiuonaries do not want to fight, they simply recognize the necessity of fighting when trying to defend yourself against the police and the army. Against men and women who have no quirms about putting a bullet in the back of your head.

You people have to stop being so sentimental. No killing isnt nice! but it is somthing your all going to have to come to terms with if you ever want to get rid of capitalism.

Lastly, it isnt about us saying we have more of a right to kill someone else, it is about making an objective decision about how you change society and then having the courage to see it through. :ph34r:

sc4r

3rd September 2003, 14:47

Originally posted by Libertarian [email protected] 2 2003, 10:13 AM
FOR GOD SAKE MAN! Do any of you listen.....

My problem with revolution is that I believe that people should not kill each other, it seems wrong to decide that you have more of a right to live than someone else, and therefore you can kill them.

This is not only sentimental bullshit but complete misunderstanding. It isn't about killing, it is about defence. Revolutiuonaries do not want to fight, they simply recognize the necessity of fighting when trying to defend yourself against the police and the army. Against men and women who have no quirms about putting a bullet in the back of your head.

You people have to stop being so sentimental. No killing isnt nice! but it is somthing your all going to have to come to terms with if you ever want to get rid of capitalism.

Lastly, it isnt about us saying we have more of a right to kill someone else, it is about making an objective decision about how you change society and then having the courage to see it through. :ph34r:
I'm in an unusual position. I admire your straightforward recognition that revolution is not pretty, I applaud the fact that you face up to fact that this BS about a socialist revolution being possibly not too bloody is sheer nonsense.

I do think you are missing some rather fundamental things though.

1. Talk of revolution before there is any popular support even for change is not so much premature as hopelessly unrealistic. Revolutions suceed where there is popular support and where the really committed actually start to carry them through. Except when we are talking of coups from within an already large, organised, and usually military base they dont so much get planned and executed as grow. Someone starts, if there is popular support others join in.

And it needs real commitment. Starting , or joining a genuine revolution carries the certainty that you are going to have to do unpleasant things, and a high risk that you are going to be killed even if it is successful.

There is probably nobody like that here. If there were I doubt they'd be foolish enough to admit it.

2a. Capitalism is a system not a body of people. like all such socio-economic systems it works to optimise something and it has consequences. One of those consequences is that some people end up with both an excess of wealth and power. I imagine it is these people you are calling 'capitalists'.

2b. On the basis of a world wide evaluation almost every single person living in the west is a capitalist on that test. Some are of course 'bigger capitalists' than others because that too is a direct consequence of the system; but we are all capitalists.

2c. All socio economic systems function because its rules are followed. Thsi involves a consensus by people that they will follow those rules (the most important one when discussing capitalism is that people will respect 'liberal property rights'). The consensus does not have to be achieved willingly of course, all that matters is that for whatever reason it is followed.

2d. Now we come to the crux. What proportion of people in the west agree that abiding by liberal property rights is a good thing? 80%? 90%?; certainly a large majority. All these people support Capitalism, they are all capitalists by the other way of defining it, which is whether one 'believes' in it.

2ei. Now we already know that control over naked force (which is what ultimately decides what socio economic system is followed) lies largely in the hands of the 'bigger caqpitalists' - you acknowlege as much in your posts.

2eii And we also know that almost everybody else agrees that this is OK.

2eiii So how would you change this? Not by staging a 'revolution' with the small percentage of the minority who actualy do oppose it who would actually fight thats for sure, to what end? You cannot win, and if you did you would simply be imposing a minority view. Exactly what Socialism is not about.

2eiv The answer is that you must seek both to change people minds, clearly and definitely; you must know that you have done so; and you must also take control of as much naked force as is humanly possible.

2ev How? If you can suggest a more practical direct method than by seeking a mandate through the existing voting system please do so. It may not work; it could be that having aquired the majority support you need your will still be blocked by those who actually wield real power. But unless it is clear to the majority who may support you that they actually are being thwarted you cannot expect support for what will inevitably be a very messy, bloody affair.

2evi The only alternative is to try and buld clear support without ever testing the existing system. Why? The existing system gives you both a commincations medium which is otherwise not open to you; A clear progress meter (very important in persuading people I assure you); and at least an outside chance that some , if not all, of the established 'naked power' structure will fall in line with you.

You can talk of revolution all you like. It sound bold and brave and glorious. The truth is, however, that real revolutionaries do not talk. They do. Smart ones dont do unless they have at least some chance of winning. Really smart ones try other options first because it is both easier and more likely to win the massive popular support that is needed anyway.

Anyone interested right now in IMPLEMENTING Socialism should be looking first and foremost at political mechanisms. Those interested in talking about it can pretty much please themselves, they make no significant difference anyway.

The Feral Underclass

3rd September 2003, 18:19

Talk of revolution before there is any popular support even for change is not so much premature as hopelessly unrealistic

I never talked about an unpopular revolution.

Revolutions suceed where there is popular support and where the really committed actually start to carry them through.

Revolution can only come about when people begin to become conscious of their material conditions. ie, argentina. Capitalism creates a crisis and people begin to see society differently. Then they begin to ask questions, so on and so on. When the conditions become clearer to people Leninists may be very keen on having commited working class people. But what kind of revolution are you wanting here. The freedom of the working class people can not come from commited people being lead, which is what this implies. But from people with understanding and passion to lead themselves.

Capitalism is a system not a body of people...

hmmm!

On the basis of a world wide evaluation almost every single person living in the west is a capitalist...we are all capitalists.

:blink:

Now we come to the crux. What proportion of people in the west agree that abiding by liberal property rights is a good thing? 80%? 90%?; certainly a large majority. All these people support Capitalism, they are all capitalists by the other way of defining it, which is whether one 'believes' in it.

Yes I agree. I would probably go aqs far as to say that 99% of people believed in liberal property rights, liberal social politics, or social democracy. This however does not stop Capitalism from being what it is. Society has developed this way. The way you speak about people it sounds as if your saying that somehow they all decided to believe in this. People don't choose to believe, they dont have an alternative. It's reality.

Now we already know that control over naked force (which is what ultimately decides what socio economic system is followed) lies largely in the hands of the 'bigger caqpitalists' - you acknowlege as much in your posts.

I presume when you say Naked Force you mean humans.

And we also know that almost everybody else agrees that this is OK.

I am presuming here that when you say "everybody" your talking about the population of the planet. Here again I can agree with you. But again this goes back to most peoples perception on society, which is that reality is reality and there is absolutly no possible way that they can change it.

How? If you can suggest a more practical direct method than by seeking a mandate through the existing voting system please do so. It may not work; it could be that having aquired the majority support you need your will still be blocked by those who actually wield real power. But unless it is clear to the majority who may support you that they actually are being thwarted you cannot expect support for what will inevitably be a very messy, bloody affair.

What im trying to talk about is more profound than mandates and existing voting systems, which may I add was created by capitalists to defend capitalism. I amt alking about the emancipation of the working class. Freedom from having to sell yourself for an hour a go to some rich twat who earnhs a 1000 times more than you do in a second. Parliment wont free people. It wont re organize society so that people can be provided for. parliment will not give people a new perspoective on how to live their lives.

You say to suggest something, but Marx and Bakunin, Lenin and all the others have been suggesting it since 1848. We need to build a mass movement which encourages people to educate themseleves. A movement which provides that education. We need working class people, those people who make the world go round recognize what society is and what capitalism is. Parliment can not achieve these things. Parliment is the creation of the bourgeoisie to protect the property of the rich. It has no interest of emancipating working class people.

And now to the revolution. When I talk about revolution, I talk about it in the context of being the "inevitable" outcome of this education. When this movement has grown. When the mass of people see what capitalism is, they will spill onto the streets, demanding that it is changed. Then the police come, then the army, and then we have to barricade the streets and fight. That is the revolution.

The only alternative is to try and buld clear support without ever testing the existing system. Why? The existing system gives you both a commincations medium which is otherwise not open to you;

Don't you think we have been nice enough for long enough. Maybe it's about time we start testing the fucking system. As for this communication medium, im not sure what to say. it is something that the movement would have to talk about.

As for all this cods-wallop about smart revolutionaries doing this and blah blah blah, I can't be bothered to enter into sectarian arguments with people I dont know, and who dont know me. I have told you what I think, and that is that! :ph34r:

redstar2000

3rd September 2003, 21:23

One of those consequences is that some people end up with both an excess of wealth and power. I imagine it is these people you are calling 'capitalists'.

On the basis of a world wide evaluation almost every single person living in the west is a capitalist on that test. Some are of course 'bigger capitalists' than others because that too is a direct consequence of the system; but we are all capitalists.

If that were the case, why change capitalism at all? Why shouldn't we just apply ourselves to advancing our personal careers? Move on up in the hierarchy. Get to be "bigger capitalists" ourselves. All it takes is "hard work", right?

It isn't the case, of course. It's just an old schtick of reformist salesmanship that dates back to the 1950s...it was called "people's capitalism" and it asserted that there really wasn't a capitalist class any more.

It's based on a crude conflation of standard-of-living and real economic power. A unionized manufacturing worker in England or America appears fabulously wealthy by the standards of an Indonesian peasant...but both are equally powerless in the light of capitalist "law". If either attempt to struggle for substantive improvements in their lives (much less a shift in real power), they will both be met by violent repression at the orders of the capitalist class.

Class struggle continues...which wouldn't happen, of course, if "we were all capitalists".

What proportion of people in the west agree that abiding by liberal property rights is a good thing? 80%? 90%?; certainly a large majority. All these people support Capitalism, they are all capitalists by the other way of defining it, which is whether one 'believes' in it.

As a "snapshot" of existing reality in the west, few would argue the point. What happens when the majority of people have no "property rights" to defend?

Or, to put it another way, as capitalism evolves, are more people likely to have property rights or will wealth continue to concentrate in the hands of the few?

It could be argued that the "average worker" is not concerned with Rupert Murdoch's billions...as long as s/he has a house and car of her/his "own".

But how long will that continue to be the case? How many redundancies (layoffs) can you endure before the bank takes back the house and the car because you can't make the payments?

The reformist agenda is based on the assumption that capitalism will have its ups and downs but essentially will continue to function indefinitely as it has for the last sixty years.

And, to be fair about it, if that assumption about capitalism was valid, then the reformist political agenda would "make sense."

Not only would the overthrow of the capitalist class be "impossible"...it would be a "meaningless" phrase; hence the "questions" about "who is a capitalist, anyway?".

Marxists have a different analysis, of course and therefore draw different conclusions. For us, the golden years of capitalism (1940-1975 in America) are over. From the standpoint of the working class, things have been stagnant since then--the facade of "prosperity" is the product of an enormous expansion in consumer credit as well as the growing number of households where both members of a couple must hold down full-time jobs.

Facades can look very impressive...but they cannot withstand storms like a complete structure. I think a reasonable forecast for the coming decades involves at least a partial collapse of that facade of "prosperity", one that will ripple across the western world the way the bank crises of 1929-31 did, plunging tens of millions of "prosperous" workers into bankruptcy.

What price "property rights" when you no longer have any property?

If you can suggest a more practical direct method than by seeking a mandate through the existing voting system, please do so. It may not work; it could be that having acquired the majority support you need your will still be blocked by those who actually wield real power. But unless it is clear to the majority who may support you that they actually are being thwarted you cannot expect support for what will inevitably be a very messy, bloody affair.

If you read this carefully, you can probably spot the hidden assumption.

It's this: We who are "socialists" can only fundamentally change society if we have the "support" of the majority.

It sounds reasonable enough; what's wrong with it?

We are not the ones who change society; it is the working class that changes society.

It's not a matter of convincing people to "support us" either by argument or at gunpoint.

The emancipation of the working class must be the work of the workers themselves.

That's not rhetoric...that is the revolutionary hypothesis!

Again, in fairness, if you reject that hypothesis, then the reformist parliamentary strategy "makes sense". You, an "enlightened" person who "cares about people" seek to attain public office in order to "help" people...and you need their votes to do that. If the powers that be resist the votes of the majority, then you need your majority's willingness to use violence to put you in public office, after which, you can "help them".

But given your own "respect for the law" and your firm conviction that this respect is universal in your country, you really expect no violence and certainly will never tell people ahead of time that violence might be required. That would be "irresponsible" and might "scare" away supporters.

After your peaceful victory, reforms will be enacted and things will get a little better for a while.

You can retire and write your memoirs.

And wage-slavery, like "Old Man River", will just keep rolling along.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

sc4r

3rd September 2003, 23:15

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2003, 09:23 PM
One of those consequences is that some people end up with both an excess of wealth and power. I imagine it is these people you are calling 'capitalists'.

On the basis of a world wide evaluation almost every single person living in the west is a capitalist on that test. Some are of course 'bigger capitalists' than others because that too is a direct consequence of the system; but we are all capitalists.

If that were the case, why change capitalism at all? Why shouldn't we just apply ourselves to advancing our personal careers? Move on up in the hierarchy. Get to be "bigger capitalists" ourselves. All it takes is "hard work", right?

It isn't the case, of course. It's just an old schtick of reformist salesmanship that dates back to the 1950s...it was called "people's capitalism" and it asserted that there really wasn't a capitalist class any more.

It's based on a crude conflation of standard-of-living and real economic power. A unionized manufacturing worker in England or America appears fabulously wealthy by the standards of an Indonesian peasant...but both are equally powerless in the light of capitalist "law". If either attempt to struggle for substantive improvements in their lives (much less a shift in real power), they will both be met by violent repression at the orders of the capitalist class.

Class struggle continues...which wouldn't happen, of course, if "we were all capitalists".

What proportion of people in the west agree that abiding by liberal property rights is a good thing? 80%? 90%?; certainly a large majority. All these people support Capitalism, they are all capitalists by the other way of defining it, which is whether one 'believes' in it.

As a "snapshot" of existing reality in the west, few would argue the point. What happens when the majority of people have no "property rights" to defend?

Or, to put it another way, as capitalism evolves, are more people likely to have property rights or will wealth continue to concentrate in the hands of the few?

It could be argued that the "average worker" is not concerned with Rupert Murdoch's billions...as long as s/he has a house and car of her/his "own".

But how long will that continue to be the case? How many redundancies (layoffs) can you endure before the bank takes back the house and the car because you can't make the payments?

The reformist agenda is based on the assumption that capitalism will have its ups and downs but essentially will continue to function indefinitely as it has for the last sixty years.

And, to be fair about it, if that assumption about capitalism was valid, then the reformist political agenda would "make sense."

Not only would the overthrow of the capitalist class be "impossible"...it would be a "meaningless" phrase; hence the "questions" about "who is a capitalist, anyway?".

Marxists have a different analysis, of course and therefore draw different conclusions. For us, the golden years of capitalism (1940-1975 in America) are over. From the standpoint of the working class, things have been stagnant since then--the facade of "prosperity" is the product of an enormous expansion in consumer credit as well as the growing number of households where both members of a couple must hold down full-time jobs.

Facades can look very impressive...but they cannot withstand storms like a complete structure. I think a reasonable forecast for the coming decades involves at least a partial collapse of that facade of "prosperity", one that will ripple across the western world the way the bank crises of 1929-31 did, plunging tens of millions of "prosperous" workers into bankruptcy.

What price "property rights" when you no longer have any property?

If you can suggest a more practical direct method than by seeking a mandate through the existing voting system, please do so. It may not work; it could be that having acquired the majority support you need your will still be blocked by those who actually wield real power. But unless it is clear to the majority who may support you that they actually are being thwarted you cannot expect support for what will inevitably be a very messy, bloody affair.

If you read this carefully, you can probably spot the hidden assumption.

It's this: We who are "socialists" can only fundamentally change society if we have the "support" of the majority.

It sounds reasonable enough; what's wrong with it?

We are not the ones who change society; it is the working class that changes society.

It's not a matter of convincing people to "support us" either by argument or at gunpoint.

The emancipation of the working class must be the work of the workers themselves.

That's not rhetoric...that is the revolutionary hypothesis!

Again, in fairness, if you reject that hypothesis, then the reformist parliamentary strategy "makes sense". You, an "enlightened" person who "cares about people" seek to attain public office in order to "help" people...and you need their votes to do that. If the powers that be resist the votes of the majority, then you need your majority's willingness to use violence to put you in public office, after which, you can "help them".

But given your own "respect for the law" and your firm conviction that this respect is universal in your country, you really expect no violence and certainly will never tell people ahead of time that violence might be required. That would be "irresponsible" and might "scare" away supporters.

After your peaceful victory, reforms will be enacted and things will get a little better for a while.

You can retire and write your memoirs.

And wage-slavery, like "Old Man River", will just keep rolling along.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas
Redstar you are a prick. I read two paragrpahs of you misrepresnting what I've just said and introducing your usual dose of personal discreditisation before I got too bored to read further.

Why change Capitlaism at all? Do you really need to ask that? because irrespective of whether people think it is good for them, it is not. Can anyone really believe that in post where I said Capitalism is bad I'm actually suggesting it is good. A post where I suggest ways of defeating it ?

What actually is, and what people think is not neccessarily aligned chummy. Once most thought the Earth was flat.

Bottom line is that if people support Capitalism no amount of pontificating by you about how they should not thinlk that will alter it unless we do something. Thats what I was saying.

libertarian You might want a revolution, but until you get people on your side you cant have one can you ? How are you suggesting this is done ? I see nothing from you to say how.

Yes the existing political system is a communication vehicle. What do you think the papers print every day ? The ramblings of RS's namby pamby communist thoughts, your instructions to revolt, or the arguments that took place in mainstream politics? Thay print the latter. If 1% of people vote for Socialist arguments nothing happens, If 2% do this gets reported and maybe another 1% start to think 'hmmmmm maybe' and so it rolls on and accumulates.

It makes not one fucking jot of difference who invented liberal democracy or why. It is here. Use it. why the fuck not ?

The Feral Underclass

3rd September 2003, 23:31

oh...my...god.... :angry: have you not paid any attention to anything I have said...I really cant be bothered to explain anymore...I have answered all your questions numerous times.

I am interested however to know what your government would do when it get into power.

Conghaileach

3rd September 2003, 23:37

Most of the contributions to this thread seem to agree that there will be some kind of violent struggle, whether it is in the revolution itself or in the defence of it.

So, how exactly do the people here expect to be able to fight back? Does everyone believe that we should do what the Bolsheviks did in Russia and collect arms so as to prepare to fight, or do we expect weapons to fall into our hands?

Is there any other way to fend off the multi-billion pound war machines of the likes of the US and Britain? And how can we hope to obtain weapons without drawing the unwanted attention of the state?

Just some food for thought.

sc4r

3rd September 2003, 23:39

Originally posted by Libertarian [email protected] 3 2003, 11:31 PM
oh...my...god.... :angry: have you not paid any attention to anything I have said...I really cant be bothered to explain anymore...I have answered all your questions numerous times.

I am interested however to know what your government would do when it get into power.
What do you think a government campaigning on the ticket of eliminating liberal property rights and replacing them with social property right might be expected to do ?

take a wild guess.

P.S. 'naked power' means in essence 'You will do this because if you do not you will absolutely hate what happens next'. Evberything is ultimately decided by this. If you are down a well and I say that unles you pass me up a cup of water I'm gonna pour concrete on you, and I can, thats naked power being exercised. Naked power lies wherever it does actually lie. No ampunt of whinging that it should lie elsewhere changes this.

Vinny Rafarino

4th September 2003, 00:01

Yes, bloodless revolution is possible. The problem being we must wait for it. Choosing a "bloodless" revolution versus armed struggle means we must wait until capitalism completely crumbles in on itself. We all know capitalism will inevitable fail once the market is completely globalised through imperialism, as the surplus value of goods and commodities will continue to decrease to a level that leaves no surplus value over the cost of creating said products. Once this occurs, corporations will not continue to produce as their profit margin on any good produced has scaled to nil or even in the red.

The problem here is that this will take another 50-75 years. Perhaps even a bit longer.

This is why I support armed struggle. 50+ years of oppression of the proletariat in my mind is not a valid reason to abandon the idea of armed struggle in the first world.

Once ALL of us socialists can work together to create the necessary conditions for revolution, everyone will have a new role. Those that prefer non-violent means of revolution will be required to educate and the current proletariat as well as the next generation od workers. Those that believe in armed struggle will be responsible for stimulating the masses to produce massive civil desobediance through the people's natural affinity of violent action.

This of course is a very simple answer to this question. The actual dynamics behind this sort of action are to much to even think of posting on an internet forum. It's probably not very wise to do so.

redstar2000

4th September 2003, 01:08

The trenchant criticisms of our resident reformist are indeed "difficult" to refute.

Redstar, you are a prick.

Of course I am. I just spend several hundred words taking your hypothesis seriously (for the sake of discussion), showing exactly what's wrong with it...and you got "bored"!

That, presumably, makes me a "prick".

So here's the short version: your strategy of bourgeois electoral politics can't work. It's a waste of time, energy, and resources...not to mention demoralizing and corrupting for the participants.

And the reason for that is the class nature of bourgeois democracy, period!

Yes, I know, you don't "believe" in classes, much less in class struggle. You think all this stuff is just a disagreement between honorable men and can be resolved with good will on all sides.

Looking at it from your point of view, I am a "prick".

From my point of view, you are an idiot! And less of a "socialist" with every post you make.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

The Feral Underclass

4th September 2003, 01:21

Originally posted by sc4r+Sep 4 2003, 12:39 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (sc4r @ Sep 4 2003, 12:39 AM)
Libertarian [email protected] 3 2003, 11:31 PM
oh...my...god.... :angry: have you not paid any attention to anything I have said...I really cant be bothered to explain anymore...I have answered all your questions numerous times.

I am interested however to know what your government would do when it get into power.
What do you think a government campaigning on the ticket of eliminating liberal property rights and replacing them with social property right might be expected to do ?

take a wild guess.

P.S. 'naked power' means in essence 'You will do this because if you do not you will absolutely hate what happens next'. Evberything is ultimately decided by this. If you are down a well and I say that unles you pass me up a cup of water I'm gonna pour concrete on you, and I can, thats naked power being exercised. Naked power lies wherever it does actually lie. No ampunt of whinging that it should lie elsewhere changes this.[/b]
What does this actually mean...liberal property...sociali property. How is this going to eliminate wage slavery, poverty, famine, the spread of aids, corruption. How is this going to stop rich people from exploiting working class people. You didnt answer my question at all.

As for you RAF, you have utterly surprised me. Dividing responsibility between pacifists and revolutionaries? Working class people can not free themselves if our movement is fundamentally split. What will happen while these pacifists are "educating" the movement and telling people that violence is wrong, and then you expect them to go out and fight. It dosnt make any sense. You can not have a movement so fundamentally divided. Come on man, we profoundly disagree on how we change society. That isnt just some simple administrative quibble. It's complete extremes of the spectrum.

Jeez RAF, your getting soft in your old age! :ph34r:

Vinny Rafarino

4th September 2003, 01:34

Reforms? There is ablsolutely no chance of that ever happening. That ideology is exactly what the capitalist imperialist want you to buy into. Standing around citing hamless reform rhetoric while they are the ones who have control over the government AND the voting process. Capitalism would fail on it's own prior to any such reform ever taking place. I choose not to be the lap-dog of te capitalists and will fight until I am either imprisoned or killed.

Libertarian Commie,

I think you misuderstood what I meant, or I was not clear enough. I am looking to unify the all socialist under one banner. Assigning different tasks to different people that suit their ideology more appropriately is harly dividing us into factions. It is the most logical cure for what has been ailing our movement hitherto;

The inability to unite!

What I am saying is we can overcome our oppressors if we all work together, if one hand kkows what the other is doing so to speak. We will not always agree on tactics, but at least we have a better chance to make each of our own ideal work in practise if we simple shed our petty differences for the goods of humanity.

Or we can all sip our pints and wait. I choose not to wait. If were are united, then I can only assume that extreme urban armed struggle will take on a new form, it will be given "credibility" in the eyes of the masses.

Is it not better to have the popular view of your armed force be that of a "people's army" rather than that of a "terrorist cell"?

The Feral Underclass

4th September 2003, 17:30

Comrade RAF...I agree that it is important to unite the movement, and I agree the movement should encourage wide spectrums of revolutionary politics. But that is just it...Revolutionary politics! I'm not trying to antagonise you and this may seem slightly sectarian, but pacifism, which is what it is, has no logical place in a revolutionary movement.

Revolution is an inevitable outcome of the workers gaining class consciousness. One thing that I dont understand is this:

If were are united, then I can only assume that extreme urban armed struggle will take on a new form, it will be given "credibility" in the eyes of the masses.

Credability for whom. Are you talking about us as revolutionaries. Are we talking about, to coin a phraze, a vangaurd. We should not be looking for the movement to gain credibility from workers, we should be looking for the movement to be the workers. Leading themselves. Fully concious of themselves and their role in changing society.

I am all up for uniting the movement. But not with pacifists. Pacifism is a lack of consciousness. People who are pacifists do not understand fully what capitalism is. If they do not understand what capitalism is, then how can they know how to change it. Marx spent his entire life analyzing capitalism. He explained it economically and socially. he understood what it was and how it would defend itself if threatened. That is why he came to the conclusion that the only way to get rid of it, is if we smash it. So when you say we are going to inevitably disagree on tactics, you are validating this misunderstanding of capitalism and giving it credibility as a matter of oppinion. An oppinion which fundamentally goes against the entire philosophy and science of Marxism.

This sentimentality must be argued against, not embraced. :ph34r:

sc4r

5th September 2003, 07:16

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2003, 01:08 AM
The trenchant criticisms of our resident reformist are indeed "difficult" to refute.

Redstar, you are a prick.

Of course I am. I just spend several hundred words taking your hypothesis seriously (for the sake of discussion), showing exactly what's wrong with it...and you got "bored"!

That, presumably, makes me a "prick".

So here's the short version: your strategy of bourgeois electoral politics can't work. It's a waste of time, energy, and resources...not to mention demoralizing and corrupting for the participants.

And the reason for that is the class nature of bourgeois democracy, period!

Yes, I know, you don't "believe" in classes, much less in class struggle. You think all this stuff is just a disagreement between honorable men and can be resolved with good will on all sides.

Looking at it from your point of view, I am a "prick".

From my point of view, you are an idiot! And less of a "socialist" with every post you make.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas
Redstar: What you did in the first couple of paragraphs of the post I responded to was to attack a position that is not mine, I barely recognised it. You do this regularly.

Thats why you are a prick.

It's very easy to say the words 'class struggle' as you do. Somewhat harder as you find over and over again to to defend the idea that class even exists with distinct borders in the western world.

I've invited you to describe exactly who would be struggling against who in terms which would enable them to be identified, and all I ever get back is vague statements and dogmatic slogans.

And once again the plan I suggest is not to reform liberal democracy but to use it and then eliminate it. No suggestion of reforming it is present in my ideas. Hence I am not a reformist.

sc4r

5th September 2003, 07:30

Originally posted by Libertarian [email protected] 4 2003, 01:21 AM
[QUOTE=Libertarian Commie,Sep 3 2003, 11:31 PM] What does this actually mean...liberal property...sociali property. How is this going to eliminate wage slavery, poverty, famine, the spread of aids, corruption. How is this going to stop rich people from exploiting working class people. You didnt answer my question at all.

If you do not know what Liberal property rights are and the difference between liberal property and social property then quite frankly you have no business criticising anything; let alone lambasting others for lack of 'true commitment'.

Liberal property rights is the very heart of capitalism. The two things are completely inseparable. Liberal property rights are the basic cause of the effects which you are calling 'capitalism'.

Liberal property rights, in summary, allow individuals to claim an entitlement to surplus value created by the means of production both in the present and in the future. Social property is not owned in this way, but by society at large. In other words one is capitalism and one is Socialism; it is that simple.

Vinny Rafarino

5th September 2003, 07:34

Libertarian Communist,

I thought you knew me a bit btter than that. I in no way endorse pacifism. I thinks it's counter-revolutionary. But unfortunately there are those among us that are true socialist but do not believe in violent action and their simply must be a way to work together properly.

These pacifist voices are needed to gain public favour. If you think that public favour is not required in a worker's revolution then you are mistaken. Without the support of the masses, the workers WILL NOT unite and if they try, they will immediately be sacked and replaced by those that do not support their cause. Effectively ending that revolution right quick. You have to consider these objectives as they are utterly important in a revolution.

I'm sorry mate, but I do not subscribe to the ideology that the workers will lead themselves. It is simply not a logical or rational ideal. But, we have been through this before my friend. That dead horse is beaten to a pulp.

This is what I always talk about when I say anarchism does not have it's feet in the present.

Dyst

5th September 2003, 08:50

The Norwegian socialist party (www.sv.no) are now the most popular party in Norway today, while the "future's party" which is a conservative right-wing party is the next biggest. The Labour party is number three on the list.

The socialist party is not revolutionairy, but I think if they got the power, revolutionairy parties like www.rv.no would gain much more votes than in its current situation where the christian fundementalists have power. Since I am living here in Oslo and a true believer of politics, I am following the political situation up here closely. It might just be me, but I am smelling a revolution...

sc4r

5th September 2003, 10:23

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 5 2003, 07:34 AM
Libertarian Communist,

I thought you knew me a bit btter than that. I in no way endorse pacifism. I thinks it's counter-revolutionary. But unfortunately there are those among us that are true socialist but do not believe in violent action and their simply must be a way to work together properly.

These pacifist voices are needed to gain public favour. If you think that public favour is not required in a worker's revolution then you are mistaken. Without the support of the masses, the workers WILL NOT unite and if they try, they will immediately be sacked and replaced by those that do not support their cause. Effectively ending that revolution right quick. You have to consider these objectives as they are utterly important in a revolution.

I'm sorry mate, but I do not subscribe to the ideology that the workers will lead themselves. It is simply not a logical or rational ideal. But, we have been through this before my friend. That dead horse is beaten to a pulp.

This is what I always talk about when I say anarchism does not have it's feet in the present.
Once again I could not agree more. Very succinct and direct mate.

The Feral Underclass

5th September 2003, 12:10

sc4r: You are an enemy to the working class. Your reformist bollocks sickens me. I have nothing but contempt for you. I only hope that when the revolution does come, and it will, you pick your side wisly.

RAF: Other than the Anarchist bash I agree principly with you. It is important to work with those people who do not agree with revolution. But they only disagree with it because they are not fully conscious. Allow them to help, allow them struggle, but we, as Marxists have to bring about their consciousness, not only of these comrades who wish to help, but the entire working class they are helping.

We are revolutionaries. Maybe of a slightly different school, but we understand that the only way to effectivly change society is the in evitable revolution. We can not have people, who lack conscious, to be a voice for our movement. We can not be affraid of what we are and how we fight. Certainly people will think we are terrorists, to begin with, but this will change eventually as more and more people are encouraged to educate.

This is what I always talk about when I say anarchism does not have it's feet in the present.

I think that Anarchist theory has a large role to play in modern day revolutionary politics. Of course those mad anarchists who refuse to break from their sectarian nonsense are irrelevant, as are those sectarian Leninists who refuse to wain in their stubborness. I think we have alot to learn from each other, and at the end of the day, whether it be Libertarian Marxism or Leninist-Marxism we are all wanting the same thing. :ph34r:

sc4r

5th September 2003, 13:15

Originally posted by Libertarian [email protected] 5 2003, 12:10 PM
sc4r: You are an enemy to the working class. Your reformist bollocks sickens me. I have nothing but contempt for you. I only hope that when the revolution does come, and it will, you pick your side wisly.

RAF: Other than the Anarchist bash I agree principly with you. It is important to work with those people who do not agree with revolution. But they only disagree with it because they are not fully conscious. Allow them to help, allow them struggle, but we, as Marxists have to bring about their consciousness, not only of these comrades who wish to help, but the entire working class they are helping.

We are revolutionaries. Maybe of a slightly different school, but we understand that the only way to effectivly change society is the in evitable revolution. We can not have people, who lack conscious, to be a voice for our movement. We can not be affraid of what we are and how we fight. Certainly people will think we are terrorists, to begin with, but this will change eventually as more and more people are encouraged to educate.

This is what I always talk about when I say anarchism does not have it's feet in the present.

I think that Anarchist theory has a large role to play in modern day revolutionary politics. Of course those mad anarchists who refuse to break from their sectarian nonsense are irrelevant, as are those sectarian Leninists who refuse to wain in their stubborness. I think we have alot to learn from each other, and at the end of the day, whether it be Libertarian Marxism or Leninist-Marxism we are all wanting the same thing. :ph34r:
hah !

Let me tell you directly that most of the anarchists and 'revolutionaries' who post here have zero experience of work and probably about the same exposure to 'the working class' (ie actual workers). I had one such mickey taker over on Redstars anarchist group try to lecture me on the basis that he 'lived near a factory'.

Nor have most of you ever done anything more revolutionary than write about how vital it is to have one. Even parading up and down chanting silly slogans is more than most have managed.

In itself I dont object to any of that. I'm a realist; I know that young people play around with ideas, and I know that before they are going to actually be committed they'll need to try it on for size, learn about it, and talk about it. I'm also, of course, in no way opposed to being joined by people whjo are not workers (eg students) or people from middle class backgrounds (or even aristocrats). What matters to me is their commitment, not their background.

Son, you ever come up against me in a 'revolution' you are gonna have to hope you can do something a helluva lot more scary than call me names.

I dont like being called a traitor. Chances are very very high that my contribution over the years to the Socialist movement totally dwarves yours. Whats this accusation actually based on ?:

I'm saying (exactly as RAF is saying) that realistic progress requires popular support, that we dont have it at the moment. Do you disagree?

I'm saying that talking amongst ourselves about glorious revolution wont achieve that popular support - Disagree?

That the established order is Liberal democracy (you can call it bourgeoise democracy or capitalism if you like, makes no odds its the same thing), and that that order wont simply allow you to carry out recruitment drives without publishing its own propaganda, and they are very much better placed then us to make that message convincing - Disagree?

That the established order holds the reins of government - disagree?

That all the organised armed and police forces are controlled by government - disagree?

That a 'revolution' undertaken by a (small) minority of the population going up against those forces is gonna get trashed - Disagree?

And that as a consequence of all that a totally obvious first step for the Socialist Movement in the first world is to build clear popular support; make it obvious to those whose commitment is a bit less than 100% (ie most) to what extent their wishes are being catered for by the established order; and if possible gain some measure of control over the organised forces. That can only be done by gaining a clear mandate through the existing electoral process. Anything else leaves people thinking ' well how come they can only get 5% support, they are just pushy extremists demanding their own way'. Coupled with violent destructive activities you'll get labelled a terrorist (believe me I know, I know that even with lots of popular support you do).

So wher does this leave us ? I'm according to you a reformist because I want to achieve a genuine socialist system (NOT a few socially desirable concessions within the context of modified liberal property rights and representative democracy); and I perceieve that the most effective tactic involves using the voting system which liberals have so handily created. I dont (unlike you it seems) focus on the specifics of what is and is not socially desirable (would you be happy if you got those things, but retained liberalism? that actually is reformism.

Bottom line, I'm staying halfway polite so far to you because it just could be you are too young and uninformed to know better (frankly your ignorance of what liberal property rights are is gobsmaking for a supposed socialist). I'm no longer very polite to redstar because believe me I regard 'traitor', 'reformist' etc as deeply deeply insulting.

You want to tell me about how you are gonna crush me in your revolution and put me up against the wall ? Hah! Scuze me if I dont shit myself just yet. Your academically inspired revolution arising spontaneously from 'the workers' is never going to happen. Redstar predicts a few hundred years for it. Even if he were right I personally would regard that as far far longer than I'd be prepared to wait. Which is traitorous? 'lets put it off and wait' or 'lets do something right now' - You decide.

I'm not a traitor to your ideas or to Redstars because I've never shared them. I'm not a traitor to socialism just because I regard slogans as amusing but not much else. I'm not a traitor because I wont focus on endlessly repeating that 'class consciousness and class warfare is paramount' , but on actually achieving things. If I ever had declared myself part of the 'working class movement' I suppose I'd be a traitor to it, but since (as far as I know) no such movement exists its pretty irrelevant.

I'm a Socialist mate. I'm not 'Working class' (although I've probably spent more time than you ever will working for wages and I come from 'working class stock-miners); and what I give my alegiance to is socialism. If you are saying that it is the exclusive right of the 'working class' to belong to such a movement then by all my means expell me from your version of it. But just before you do that try and explain who is and who is not 'working class'. Dont explain in slogans, explain in english. When you either a) fail to do so; or b) come up with a definition which excludes the majority of people in the UK; then get back to me. In either case you will with only a moments thought realise that your notion of what is realistically achievable is pants. If by some miracle you could get all the people in the UK who would fit Marx's peception of a worker to organise and revolt they'd be vastly outnumbered and totally overpowered, such a movement might as well not bother, its a minority interest.

P.S. It could be that, like Redstar, you simply like sounding off on the internet. It could be you are in effect just a mouthy troll. Dont worry, I've met plenty of those, I pay little real attention, but since I dont myself mind a bit of conflict I'm quite happy to play along with a bit of simulated agression for practise.

redstar2000

5th September 2003, 14:53

Let me tell you directly that most of the anarchists and 'revolutionaries' who post here have zero experience of work and probably about the same exposure to 'the working class' (ie actual workers)...

Nor have most of you ever done anything more revolutionary than write about how vital it is to have one. Even parading up and down chanting silly slogans is more than most have managed.

This is sc4r being "half-way polite". :D

...a totally obvious first step for the Socialist Movement in the first world is to build clear popular support...That can only be done by gaining a clear mandate through the existing electoral process.

Parliamentary cretinism!

Your academically inspired revolution arising spontaneously from 'the workers' is never going to happen. Redstar predicts a few hundred years for it.

Actually, I suggested a period of anywhere from 50 to 400 years. It's always possible that my prediction is "too pessimistic".

The point, however, is not "how long" it takes to "get it right"...the point is to get it right.

I'm not a traitor to your ideas or to Redstar's because I've never shared them.

Credit where credit is due: that is very well put and completely true! I have no doubt about it whatsoever.

I'm a Socialist mate. I'm not 'Working class' (although I've probably spent more time than you ever will working for wages and I come from 'working class stock-miners); and what I give my alegiance to is socialism.

Also very revealing.

There are those who become communists out of direct self-interest: they see it as necessary to their emancipation from wage-slavery.

And there are those who are simply "attracted" to the idea, to one or another variant of "socialism" or even communism because they think it would be "fairer" or "more just" or "more rational" or "more healthy" or more whatever.

I don't think there's anything "wrong" with "humanitarian" motives per se...although the condescension gets a bit thick on occasion.

But I don't rely on people with such motives. I don't really think that it's possible, for the most part, for them to overcome their "class instincts". They see themselves as inherently "superior" to the working class and therefore "entitled" to run things "for the common good", of course.

Given the opportunity, they readily put themselves forward as "experts", "leaders", etc. and "politely" explain why we can't have what we want...the abolition of wage slavery. They tell us that we are "dreamers", "utopians", "anarchists" and, if all that doesn't work, then we must be ungrateful "pricks" who fail to properly appreciate their "dedication" to our "welfare".

I see little reason to be "grateful" for velcro chains and shaded auction blocks.

It could be that, like Redstar, you simply like sounding off on the internet. It could be you are in effect just a mouthy troll.

Or, it could be that you're on the right track and the reformist just hates that. It's not "simulated" hate, it's real hate.

Recall what German Social Democracy did to Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht.

He'd do it to us...and with no "politeness" whatsoever.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

The Feral Underclass

5th September 2003, 18:57

It is interesting that when challanged your oppinion diverts to how old you are. It is good that you are older than me, I am happy for you, I really am. But the relevance of this argument is only in how many working class people you have been able to poison while alive. Working class people being the exploited, the wage slaves and the poor. I have explained myself enough time, to go into theory about this once again. But your way out offers no chance of freedom from wage-slavery and the constent need for things. You talk about using the voting system that is already created for us, but I say to you that this is a lack of consciousness.

I have worked hard for organizations while I was in the UK. I organized and I met people. Working class people, people who believe they have no hope. People who may I add, and I am talking about a huge majoprity of people, say that the voting system is a joke. In the general election, 25% of the electoral register voted. This is from the register, and I can imagine, from talking to people, which, believe it or not Judas :o , I have done, did not have many people on it.

You say that we should get out and do things, but what are these things. Election campaigns. I am sorry, but I have more important things to do with my time than pamper the ego of some petty bourgeois twat who wants to become Prime Minister. I am organizing the down fall of capitalism and the introduction of what ever comes next. You know, the freedom of working class people. A new existance of life without want adn so on. I have only been active for seven years, so I am sure you have been doing what you do for longer. But I do not think that because you delievered Arthur Scargill leaftlets back in the 70's makes you any more relevant in a revolutionary movement...Are you a member of the Socialist Labout Party out of interest?

Son, you ever come up against me in a 'revolution' you are gonna have to hope you can do something a helluva lot more scary than call me names.

This was my favourite...your white I take it, straight and a man....I thought so. I dont think we need to worry about me coming up against you in a revolution...seen as your so old and all. You'll most likly be dead, along with your shit oppinions.

sc4r

5th September 2003, 23:17

Originally posted by Libertarian [email protected] 5 2003, 06:57 PM
It is interesting that when challanged your oppinion diverts to how old you are. It is good that you are older than me, I am happy for you, I really am. But the relevance of this argument is only in how many working class people you have been able to poison while alive. Working class people being the exploited, the wage slaves and the poor. I have explained myself enough time, to go into theory about this once again. But your way out offers no chance of freedom from wage-slavery and the constent need for things. You talk about using the voting system that is already created for us, but I say to you that this is a lack of consciousness.

I have worked hard for organizations while I was in the UK. I organized and I met people. Working class people, people who believe they have no hope. People who may I add, and I am talking about a huge majoprity of people, say that the voting system is a joke. In the general election, 25% of the electoral register voted. This is from the register, and I can imagine, from talking to people, which, believe it or not Judas :o , I have done, did not have many people on it.

You say that we should get out and do things, but what are these things. Election campaigns. I am sorry, but I have more important things to do with my time than pamper the ego of some petty bourgeois twat who wants to become Prime Minister. I am organizing the down fall of capitalism and the introduction of what ever comes next. You know, the freedom of working class people. A new existance of life without want adn so on. I have only been active for seven years, so I am sure you have been doing what you do for longer. But I do not think that because you delievered Arthur Scargill leaftlets back in the 70's makes you any more relevant in a revolutionary movement...Are you a member of the Socialist Labout Party out of interest?

Son, you ever come up against me in a 'revolution' you are gonna have to hope you can do something a helluva lot more scary than call me names.

This was my favourite...your white I take it, straight and a man....I thought so. I dont think we need to worry about me coming up against you in a revolution...seen as your so old and all. You'll most likly be dead, along with your shit oppinions.
Oh matey I love this BS nicey nicey nicey crap about how busy you are doing (errr you dont say).

Course I can guess what you are busy at. Getting your degree. And after you get it its 95% certain you'll do what everyone else does, cut your hair, junk all the student opinions, go to work for 'the capitalists' get yourself a morthage, and eventiually laugh at the idea you were once 'a spocialist'.

All this is personal abuse of course. I reckon if you call me a traitor I can call ypou whatever the hell I like. Redstar seems to think that I'm not being 'halfwat polite'; I reckon if redstar thinks he is gonna win a revolution with people who think this is less than halfway polite he's going to be in for one of a heellauba shock when he meets people whjo are all the way impolite. I sorta think Redstart has never experienced what really impolite entails despite his fiery revolutionary talk.

But. To business :)

1. About 1% of a fairly longish post was diverted (in an aside) to my age. No mate I did not divert any argumemt. I made about 10-20 stroing points, none of which ypou even attempted to answer.

2. YOU 'But your way out offers no chance of freedom from wage-slavery and the constent need for things'. Care to explain why not? thats actually the argument, not whether you can fucking well assert that it does not.

3. Someone who thinks he has 'explained enough times' but curiously does not even know the fucking basis for capitralism might a) not have explained b) not actually know anything. Just my opinion of course.

Tell us all please what yor working class credentials are. What factory do ypou work in ? how many hours do you put in? What do yopur parents do? How come you have internet access? etc. By all means make me eat my words.

I aint concious of class in the sense you mean it mate. I give not a shit about it. I am a socialist not a bloody rhetoric repeating device.

Want the bottom line? this will enable you to totally denounce me :

Capitalism is easily the most theoretically just system ever proposed. Only problem with it is that it does not remotely work as capitalist theory says it will. In other words theories that have no relation to practicality (or as RAF puts it theories not grounded in today) are purest BS.

honest intellectual

6th September 2003, 01:51

Well, anything's possible. Civil disobedience is the greatest power there is. If the people take to the streets en masse (a couple of hundred of thousand), there is absolutely nothing the state forces can do about it. They can't fire on them, they can't disperse them by force. The state is powerless.

Violence is needed only when the numbers of revolutionaries are smaller.

The Feral Underclass

6th September 2003, 02:20

sc4r: how can you presume so much and get it completely wrong. Nothing which you assumed about me was true. And as for you believeing what I put or not, is irrelevant to me. I am finished with talking with you now. Enjoy your life. :ph34r:

sc4r

6th September 2003, 05:56

Originally posted by Libertarian [email protected] 6 2003, 02:20 AM
sc4r: how can you presume so much and get it completely wrong. Nothing which you assumed about me was true. And as for you believeing what I put or not, is irrelevant to me. I am finished with talking with you now. Enjoy your life. :ph34r:
Practise is how.

I get things especially wrong when :

a) people rtefuse to say what is actually corrrect
b) people refuse to actually answer the questions raised about their ideas and instead merely assert that I'm an idjit for not agreeing with them sight unseen.

Conghaileach

6th September 2003, 20:46

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2003, 12:17 AM
Tell us all please what yor working class credentials are. What factory do ypou work in ? how many hours do you put in?
sc4r, why is it that you seem to have this fixation that the only people who can be classified as workers are those who work in factories?

sc4r

7th September 2003, 02:56

Originally posted by CiaranB+Sep 6 2003, 08:46 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (CiaranB @ Sep 6 2003, 08:46 PM)
[email protected] 6 2003, 12:17 AM
Tell us all please what yor working class credentials are. What factory do ypou work in ? how many hours do you put in?
sc4r, why is it that you seem to have this fixation that the only people who can be classified as workers are those who work in factories? [/b]
I have not got such a fixation. As far as I'm concerned the whole concept of class in the first world is pretty much outdated.

Redstar and libertarian are describing characteristics which would only apply to industrialised manual labour. Marx used Factory type labour as his focal reference point, and his observations about how people will behave is founded upon the idea that such labour is common, almost ubiquitous.

Here lies the problem. It is easy to define 'working class' in different ways. I've seen it defined in such a way that it would include Lawyers, Accountants, even company directors. But if you do this the term no longer aligns with the Marxian analysis.

Regretably its about consistency. RS has none. Libertarian does not even understand what Socialism is. Both of them (and many others) are word chopping. You can 'prove ' almost anything if you dont take the trouble to ensure that your ideas use terms consistently; but it is meaningless. It might sound good, but thats all.

The Feral Underclass

7th September 2003, 08:16

You wont let it drop will you....do you have something to prove here?

As far as I'm concerned the whole concept of class in the first world is pretty much outdated.

You do not surpise me. Not only would you encourage people to use an undemocratic "voting system", you deny even the existance f the working class. You have out done yourself.

sigh! I can only assume that when you say this you are referring to the wealth that some workers enjoy in western countries. I agree, some working class people do enjoy a good standard of living. This does not negate the fact they are exploited. It simlply means they are living comforable in their exploitation. When I say exploited, I mean used in order to create wealth for other people. The class of exploited people. ie workers. The working class.

Marx used Factory type labour as his focal reference point, and his observations about how people will behave is founded upon the idea that such labour is common, almost ubiquitous.

Marx was describing all people who had to sell their labour in order to make a living, which then created a whole load of other messes. he then concluded that this was not only illogical but cruel, and that society could be managed in a far more equel and fair way.

I've seen it defined in such a way that it would include Lawyers, Accountants, even company directors. But if you do this the term no longer aligns with the Marxian analysis.

Anyone who described these people as working class where as deluded as you. Of course Lawyers and comapny directors are not working class. They enjoy a very privlidged status and most often than not enjoy that privlidge by the hard work of others.

Regretably its about consistency. RS has none. Libertarian does not even understand what Socialism is. Both of them (and many others) are word chopping. You can 'prove ' almost anything if you dont take the trouble to ensure that your ideas use terms consistently; but it is meaningless. It might sound good, but thats all.

Of course we all have the right to our own oppinion and this is a prime example of that right being exercised. However I do not think that any of this statement is true, and I think if you look carefully at the threads in this message board you will see that this is the case. :ph34r:

sc4r

7th September 2003, 16:22

Originally posted by Libertarian [email protected] 7 2003, 08:16 AM
You wont let it drop will you....do you have something to prove here?

As far as I'm concerned the whole concept of class in the first world is pretty much outdated.

You do not surpise me. Not only would you encourage people to use an undemocratic "voting system", you deny even the existance f the working class. You have out done yourself.

sigh! I can only assume that when you say this you are referring to the wealth that some workers enjoy in western countries. I agree, some working class people do enjoy a good standard of living. This does not negate the fact they are exploited. It simlply means they are living comforable in their exploitation. When I say exploited, I mean used in order to create wealth for other people. The class of exploited people. ie workers. The working class.

Marx used Factory type labour as his focal reference point, and his observations about how people will behave is founded upon the idea that such labour is common, almost ubiquitous.

Marx was describing all people who had to sell their labour in order to make a living, which then created a whole load of other messes. he then concluded that this was not only illogical but cruel, and that society could be managed in a far more equel and fair way.

I've seen it defined in such a way that it would include Lawyers, Accountants, even company directors. But if you do this the term no longer aligns with the Marxian analysis.

Anyone who described these people as working class where as deluded as you. Of course Lawyers and comapny directors are not working class. They enjoy a very privlidged status and most often than not enjoy that privlidge by the hard work of others.

Regretably its about consistency. RS has none. Libertarian does not even understand what Socialism is. Both of them (and many others) are word chopping. You can 'prove ' almost anything if you dont take the trouble to ensure that your ideas use terms consistently; but it is meaningless. It might sound good, but thats all.

Of course we all have the right to our own oppinion and this is a prime example of that right being exercised. However I do not think that any of this statement is true, and I think if you look carefully at the threads in this message board you will see that this is the case. :ph34r:
Errrr I did not 'let it drop' because I was asked a question. This is not just an argument between me and you. This is about understanding Socialism. So what I will tend to do is to continue for so long as think their is something to be explored. And in fact you raise a few such notions in your last post.

Marxist Socialism (as I use the term, and as I reckon it is properly used) has the following defining features :

1. It does not allow individuals ownership 'rights' to the means of production (which is a key part of 'liberal property rights'). It is this feature above all which affects'wage slavery'. In essence it places any surplus value created by use of machinery, factories, etc. at the disposal of society as a whole rather than in the pockets of a capitalist individual.

The surplus can then be distributed by society in any number of ways - It could simply be returned to the workers who created it; it could be invested in building improved production facilities; it could be used to fund social initiatives (leisure facilities, Libraries, schools, hospitals, welfare, etc.).

Thus far there is no actual guarantee that an individual worker will be any better off than under capitalism; he is still being paid for his labour, and a part of the result of that labour is still not placed under his personal control. I agree it would be ideal if it could be, but how then would you fund new initiatives? What would prevent an individual worker saying 'I want all of mine, but I'm still going to benefit from anything anybody else contributes to? For that matter how would you even decide what constituted full payment for his labour, the factory did not get built by magic you know, what proportion of the total output legitimately belongs not to the worker in the factory but to the workers who created the factory ?

2. The second defining feature is an effective means for individuals to agree how the surplus actually is going to be distributed (and also what social laws and policies will be enforced). I dont know of any suggestions from the various Anarchists and Anarcho communists as to how the mechanics of their 'uncentralised' decision maiing are going to work. They seem to think that it is a trivial matter to produce a balanced and optimised set of economic policies which reflect the differing priorities that various people put on different things. Its not, as any mathematician will tell you, its frighteningly difficult. Perhaps they are assuming that they will simply tell people what they can have and that people will either like it or lump it. Thats not my idea of a free society.

So ultimately we are then talking of a voting procedure, democracy. Now I happen to think that as much direct democracy (voting on policy, not for leadership) as is possible should be introduced. But it is a complete fallacy to imagine that you can do away with a co-ordinating function altogether. Someone has to actually draft and present the choices as coherent plans for others to say yes or no to, its quite a skill even to do this in such a way that both the plan and the choice is clear.

Now whether you call these people 'leaders' or not is pretty irrelevant. they are co-ordinating and explaining. In point of fact I cant see any reason for giving them executive decision making power at all. Which rather takes the wind out of most of the 'oh but they'll be corrupt' sayers.

Now you tell me. How do you see all this working? Have you even thought about it? or are you merely campaigning on a ticket of 'we would like everything to be lovely and although we dont know how to do it we'd like you to agree'. Guess what? EVERYBODY promises that, Capitalists, Facists, Stalinists, Trots, Liberals, Conservatives. EVERYBODY !. Whats at issue is whether they actually will, or even can.

Seems to me that this probably only leaves us arguing about two things :

1. Class. I cant really comment on this since although you've told me how important it is to you you have not actually told me what it means to you. You have not said how you would decide who is and is not 'working class' beyond saying 'wage slaves'. I assure you that many accountants and lawyers work for wages, people you seem to say are excluded form your definition. Its far too complex for you but I can also assure you that the vast majority of people in the UK benefit to some extent from unearned wealth, even if it is only because they have small savings ina building society , or even because they consume cheaper coffee (because it is grown by people who are paid far less per hour than the western equivalent and whose labour is therefore not being fully reflected).

I dont give a toss for 'class' arguments. I care about people. If someone wishes to appropriate the fruits of others labour then as far as I'm concerned I'll consider him a capitalist and he is my enemy. If someone does not wish to then he is an ally. It amtters not a jot to me what these people do for a living or how much they earn given that they are in fact not living a socialist society right now. Its what they WANT that matters.

2. My ideas of how to get from where we are now to where I want to be (social ownership of means of production and dirct democracy). The fact , or otherwise, of whether representative democarcy as it exists now is 'fair' or not does not come into it since I dont wish to keep it anyway. But it does provide a realistic route for an attack on the status quo. As oppised to Redstars 'route' which is to hope that for some unexplained reason, and in some inexplicable way people 'spontaneously' overthrow the existing system and then spontaneously start all wanting exactly the samre thing.

A 'reformist' would not want what I want. A reformist would expect the existing system to remain but be legislated into being 'nicer'. I dont. I dont think it ever could be done because I think the existing system has an innate tendency to produce injustice which no amount of tinkering will remove.

I'm not a traitor to my 'class' because I dont consider myself to belong to one. I dont feel the need to create artifical divisions and pigeonholes in that way. I'm not a traitor to socialism because I believe today pretty much what I have always both believed and campaigned for.

Bottom line is that both you and redstar are happily denouncing me for believing in things I dont believe in. Neither of you are explaining how your own ideas will actually work.

The only thing I could be a traitor to, because I've always believed in it, is honesty about what I want and honesty with myself about how realistic it is to think I might get it.

Unlike RS I'm unhappy with merely spouting lovely sounding rhetoric which might gain him a few fans but which is transparently almost totally devoid of anypractical content.

Unlike you I happen to know a bit about what Socialism and Capitalism are, How they each work, or might work, what tendencies they each have built into them and a consequence I can see what might actually be doable. I'm sure you do want freedom and equality for all without 'leaders' or represntative democracy and wih lovely amounts of welfare, great social facilities and smiley happy people. The question is though have you the faintest idea how to go about it ? Do you think that declaring war on an indetrminate number of people defined in some vague way is going to help? I dont.

mentalbunny

7th September 2003, 20:29

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 5 2003, 08:34 AM
Libertarian Communist,

I thought you knew me a bit btter than that. I in no way endorse pacifism. I thinks it's counter-revolutionary. But unfortunately there are those among us that are true socialist but do not believe in violent action and their simply must be a way to work together properly.

These pacifist voices are needed to gain public favour. If you think that public favour is not required in a worker's revolution then you are mistaken. Without the support of the masses, the workers WILL NOT unite and if they try, they will immediately be sacked and replaced by those that do not support their cause. Effectively ending that revolution right quick. You have to consider these objectives as they are utterly important in a revolution.

I'm sorry mate, but I do not subscribe to the ideology that the workers will lead themselves. It is simply not a logical or rational ideal. But, we have been through this before my friend. That dead horse is beaten to a pulp.

This is what I always talk about when I say anarchism does not have it's feet in the present.
Wow, for once I like what this guy's saying!

redstar2000

8th September 2003, 01:31

Wow, for once I like what this guy's saying!--Mentalbunny

That's Comrade RAF she's talking about. (!)

Here's what the sheep-herder said...

I in no way endorse pacifism. I think it's counter-revolutionary. But unfortunately there are those among us that are true socialists but do not believe in violent action and there simply must be a way to work together properly.

These pacifist voices are needed to gain public favour.

That is, he will use pacifists and their views to "gain public favor" and, when they are no longer useful, suppress them and their views as "counter-revolutionary".

He views pacifists, in Lenin's words, as (temporarily) "useful idiots".

But what is the right word to use for someone who reads in plain English that the sheep-herder plans to use them and responds with "I like it"?

Any suggestions?

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

Vinny Rafarino

8th September 2003, 03:33

What's the matter RS? Just can't get over the fact that I'm right.? Can't get over the fact that I, unlike you, am trying to unite the left with REAL and PRACTICAL solutions rather than drive an even bigger wedge between us? A wedge you yourself cannot keep from hammering away on? You are becoming a miserable "eclectic" old man RS. You're time has past.

You then create this quaint nice little spin job in a pathetic attempt to discredit me again. How very white of you pops. What's the matter man, not happy just hacking my quotes to your advantage any longer?

No one is buying your bullshit RS. Stop being so bitter. Better yet, get back to your shine-box.

redstar2000

8th September 2003, 03:59

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 7 2003, 10:33 PM
What's the matter RS? Just can't get over the fact that I'm right? Can't get over the fact that I, unlike you, am trying to unite the left with REAL and PRACTICAL solutions rather than drive an even bigger wedge between us? A wedge you yourself cannot keep from hammering away on? You are becoming a miserable "eclectic" old man RS. You're time has past.

You then create this quaint nice little spin job in a pathetic attempt to discredit me again. How very white of you pops. What's the matter man, not happy just hacking my quotes to your advantage any longer?

No one is buying your bullshit RS. Stop being so bitter. Better yet, get back to your shine-box.
Lots of grumbling from the sheep-herder lately.

Some folks just hate it when you "blow their con".

Tough shit!

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

sc4r

8th September 2003, 07:48

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2003, 01:31 AM
Wow, for once I like what this guy's saying!--Mentalbunny

That's Comrade RAF she's talking about. (!)

Here's what the sheep-herder said...

I in no way endorse pacifism. I think it's counter-revolutionary. But unfortunately there are those among us that are true socialists but do not believe in violent action and there simply must be a way to work together properly.

These pacifist voices are needed to gain public favour.

That is, he will use pacifists and their views to "gain public favor" and, when they are no longer useful, suppress them and their views as "counter-revolutionary".

He views pacifists, in Lenin's words, as (temporarily) "useful idiots".

But what is the right word to use for someone who reads in plain English that the sheep-herder plans to use them and responds with "I like it"?

Any suggestions?

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas
I didnt read in plain english that he did plan to do this (except in what you said he said of course).

I read in plain english that he plans to work with 'pacifists'. I'm assuming that he thinks that at some point violent action will be needed to turn what they have worked for into reality. I'm assuming he want to be ready for this. I'm assuming that if by some miracle he turned out to be wrong that he would not insist on having some violent action jys for the hell of it.

The 'pacifists' being referred to are presumably people like me who would attempt a non violent transition because it would actually gain a mandate for change, and only accept a more forceful plan if the mandate were there (both because this is right and proper, and because nothing else has a prayer of succeeding anyway).

It is not that difficult. People who say 'we are determined to ave a revolution' wont get support because people will say 'why is it needed?'. People who say 'we will not under any circumstances revolt' wont win because their wishes can be ignored. People who say 'it ill happen spontaneously' are just wishing on a rainbow without a plan. People like RAF are addressing reality.

Vinny Rafarino

8th September 2003, 10:37

Reality is not the strong point of this useless hack and his disciples comrade. We all see through his nonsense. It's more of a little game with us. You know mate a "what will the hack say next" type of game.

Do we take the hack seriously? Not on your life. We've been laughing at his line of nonsense for years. It never changes. It's like an old friend, always good for a laugh.

The Feral Underclass

8th September 2003, 11:00

It is not that difficult. People who say 'we are determined to ave a revolution' wont get support because people will say 'why is it needed?'

Then we will say, because Capitalism will not allow you to fundamentally change it through any other means. Capitalism is a force desgined to maximise individuals profits and when threatend, even slightly, (Genoa, Seatlle) will use brute force to defend itself, and. That is why we need a revolution. Not because we enjoy violence, but because we understand that we must defend ourselves when the time comes to change society.

People like RAF are addressing reality.

RAF may have some very interesting points of view, but it is not realistic to presume that Capitalism will role over without a fight. In fact it is down right stupid if you think that. Realism is about excepting what capitalism is having to accept the fact that the only way to get rid of it, is if you fight it.

Your pretty little ideas about mandates, and talking to people about liberal proeprty rights etc etc etc is not going to change peoples lives. No matter how hard you try with your election campagins and your newsletters, at the end of it, your going to have to fight. Period.

In order to really free society people have to take responsibility. I mean real responsibility. I live in a commune. We have to do some shit things. We have a sewage tank at the bottom of a field where all our shit, piss, condoms, tissue and all the other crap accumelates. It has to be cleaned out. We have to shovel the shit into a bit tank where it is dealt with. We have to scrub and clean and it is vile. it stinks, beyond anything you could ever imagine. But it is a necessary job. It has to be done, or then we cant shit. So every week, we divde responsibility in a fair and equal way on a rota basis. the tasks get done without any moaning and the place runs smoothly.

Society can easily be run on the same basis. At present we sell our labour to people in order to buy food, pay rent, etc etc. Why? There is absolutly no need for it. People can be provided for if only we took the time to re organize society. And, provided, people are prepared to take full responsibility for society. The only way you can ensure that people behave like this, is if they are conscious. When people understand how and why we should run society like this, their perspectives on life will change. People will feel happier, they will want to take an active role in society.

I am not sure exactly how sociey should be run. How can you see so far in the future. There are so many factors to consider, how can you know how a revolution will unfold. Personally I still havent made up my mind about Marxsw transitional phaze. It is so impossible to make decisions that you can not waste your time thinking about it.

I do know, that a free and equal society can only be one without a state, a centralised mechanism and officals and bureaucrats. Society should be organized so that everyone is provided for. If that means organizing a community to do three hours on a farm and an hour in a power plant, then that is what needs to be done.

Society can be organized so that we work the minimal amount of time, getting the maximum output from it. Leaving us, humans, with time to enjoy our very short lives. Federalism and coperation are the only ways you can insure this. The finer deatils are for the workers and communities to decide. Society can not be run like this in one country. it has to be international.

If you disagree, I think it is illogical. How can you want to have a soceity that is run any differently. Where we have words like liberal property rights and mandates. voting systems and so on. It's all aload of bollox. We might as well jsut keep the system we have now. Because unless we pull up capitalism by its roots, hack it into little pieces, set it on fire, stomp on it then hoover into oblivion, People will never be free. :ph34r:

The Feral Underclass

8th September 2003, 12:01

I have just re-read these threads, and it is hillarious, how grown men can get so bitcy.... :lol:

redstar2000

8th September 2003, 14:50

I'm not a traitor to my 'class' because I don't consider myself to belong to one.

Who are the people who have the most to gain from pretending that classes don't exist and, even if they do, they are not part of one?

People like RAF are addressing reality.

I would suggest worshiping it would be closer to the mark.

The sheep-herder proposes a new form of class society because class society "works"...as in the "great USSR". It's especially nice for those who sit at "the commanding heights of the economy"...absolutely beats the living hell out of sheep-herding.

Some reformists wouldn't mind being "up there" either...though their conscience is "uneasy" about the methods of the sheep-herder.

Perhaps they'll work out these petty differences...perhaps not.

But we know one thing they'll go to the wall for: a bitter and total hatred of communism. That idea strikes at the heart of what they love the most: class society.

Love is, indeed, a many-splendored thing.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

sc4r

8th September 2003, 23:03

Originally posted by Libertarian [email protected] 8 2003, 11:00 AM
It is not that difficult. People who say 'we are determined to ave a revolution' wont get support because people will say 'why is it needed?'

Then we will say, because Capitalism will not allow you to fundamentally change it through any other means. Capitalism is a force desgined to maximise individuals profits and when threatend, even slightly, (Genoa, Seatlle) will use brute force to defend itself, and. That is why we need a revolution. Not because we enjoy violence, but because we understand that we must defend ourselves when the time comes to change society.

People like RAF are addressing reality.

RAF may have some very interesting points of view, but it is not realistic to presume that Capitalism will role over without a fight. In fact it is down right stupid if you think that. Realism is about excepting what capitalism is having to accept the fact that the only way to get rid of it, is if you fight it.

Your pretty little ideas about mandates, and talking to people about liberal proeprty rights etc etc etc is not going to change peoples lives. No matter how hard you try with your election campagins and your newsletters, at the end of it, your going to have to fight. Period.

In order to really free society people have to take responsibility. I mean real responsibility. I live in a commune. We have to do some shit things. We have a sewage tank at the bottom of a field where all our shit, piss, condoms, tissue and all the other crap accumelates. It has to be cleaned out. We have to shovel the shit into a bit tank where it is dealt with. We have to scrub and clean and it is vile. it stinks, beyond anything you could ever imagine. But it is a necessary job. It has to be done, or then we cant shit. So every week, we divde responsibility in a fair and equal way on a rota basis. the tasks get done without any moaning and the place runs smoothly.

Society can easily be run on the same basis. At present we sell our labour to people in order to buy food, pay rent, etc etc. Why? There is absolutly no need for it. People can be provided for if only we took the time to re organize society. And, provided, people are prepared to take full responsibility for society. The only way you can ensure that people behave like this, is if they are conscious. When people understand how and why we should run society like this, their perspectives on life will change. People will feel happier, they will want to take an active role in society.

I am not sure exactly how sociey should be run. How can you see so far in the future. There are so many factors to consider, how can you know how a revolution will unfold. Personally I still havent made up my mind about Marxsw transitional phaze. It is so impossible to make decisions that you can not waste your time thinking about it.

I do know, that a free and equal society can only be one without a state, a centralised mechanism and officals and bureaucrats. Society should be organized so that everyone is provided for. If that means organizing a community to do three hours on a farm and an hour in a power plant, then that is what needs to be done.

Society can be organized so that we work the minimal amount of time, getting the maximum output from it. Leaving us, humans, with time to enjoy our very short lives. Federalism and coperation are the only ways you can insure this. The finer deatils are for the workers and communities to decide. Society can not be run like this in one country. it has to be international.

If you disagree, I think it is illogical. How can you want to have a soceity that is run any differently. Where we have words like liberal property rights and mandates. voting systems and so on. It's all aload of bollox. We might as well jsut keep the system we have now. Because unless we pull up capitalism by its roots, hack it into little pieces, set it on fire, stomp on it then hoover into oblivion, People will never be free. :ph34r:
I mean how is anyone supposed to answer this ?

RAF says 'we must be prepared to fight to get what we want'; I agree; and you lecture on how capitalism (by which I assume you means capitalists) wont roll over. No fucj=king shit; what do you think we are saying?

Then you tell us that neccessary jobs are going to have to be done. No fucking shit x 2.

Then you tell us that in your self organising society people are going to need orgainsing!!!

Its just beyond belief how good you guys are at double talk. I lose patience.

sc4r

8th September 2003, 23:08

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2003, 02:50 PM
I'm not a traitor to my 'class' because I don't consider myself to belong to one.

Who are the people who have the most to gain from pretending that classes don't exist and, even if they do, they are not part of one?

People like RAF are addressing reality.

I would suggest worshiping it would be closer to the mark.

The sheep-herder proposes a new form of class society because class society "works"...as in the "great USSR". It's especially nice for those who sit at "the commanding heights of the economy"...absolutely beats the living hell out of sheep-herding.

Some reformists wouldn't mind being "up there" either...though their conscience is "uneasy" about the methods of the sheep-herder.

Perhaps they'll work out these petty differences...perhaps not.

But we know one thing they'll go to the wall for: a bitter and total hatred of communism. That idea strikes at the heart of what they love the most: class society.

Love is, indeed, a many-splendored thing.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas
yeah, and exactly what did that post say?

RS asserts that he is right about class.

RS asserts that there is some substantial difference between recognising and worshiping reality. Guess what RS I'd think someone who worships reality is on fairly firm ground. Someone like you who worships fairy stories is not.

RS talks about reformists again, he does not analyse what they say or want or even what they are. Bit for sure they are BADDDDDD people. Since I'm not one (and I kinda doubt F=RADF is even by RS's lights) it seems that even by RS's irrelevant to anything standards this is irrelevant squared.

RS and his like are a menace to the socialist movement. They seduce potential socialist with talk of revolution which sounds very grand and glamorous, But is Redstar planning to actually have one, to organise one etc. ? Not on yoiur life. RS is plannning to wait for one in a few hundred years. Thats about as passive as it gets. The talk of revolution is just window dressing for 'talk lovely, talk glamorous, do fuck all'.

redstar2000

9th September 2003, 00:56

RS and his like are a menace to the socialist movement.

You bet your ass we are! You and the sheep-herder have your differences, to be sure, but the more I see your posts, side-by-side, the clearer it becomes that both of you are fundamentally careerists.

That is, both of you see a "socialist movement" as some kind of "institution" that will hire you to "manage things".

Even if your "movements" (Socialism, Inc.) were successful (they won't be), nothing would really change because real change is, according to you folks, "impossible".

I am doing as much as I can to "menace" such a backward ideology.

I always appreciate having my efforts recognized.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

Marxist in Nebraska

9th September 2003, 01:56

I have to agree with redstar2k on the points he is making in his last couple of posts here.

On the question of whether bloodless revolution is possible, I would say not. Even if our revolution was entirely non-violent, the right wing would resort to killing us to keep their power. There will be blood spilled--ours, most assuredly. That much is certain...

sc4r

9th September 2003, 02:06

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2003, 12:56 AM
RS and his like are a menace to the socialist movement.

You bet your ass we are! You and the sheep-herder have your differences, to be sure, but the more I see your posts, side-by-side, the clearer it becomes that both of you are fundamentally careerists.

That is, both of you see a "socialist movement" as some kind of "institution" that will hire you to "manage things".

Even if your "movements" (Socialism, Inc.) were successful (they won't be), nothing would really change because real change is, according to you folks, "impossible".

I am doing as much as I can to "menace" such a backward ideology.

I always appreciate having my efforts recognized.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas
Jesus now I'm a careerist !! what on earth does that even mean RS ?

Real change is impossible according to me according to you? Not according to me it is not.

No-one is arguing that your vision of a perfect society is not perfect. By definition it is perfect. What anyone with half a brain will argue with is your notion of how to go about getting anywhere close to achieveing it. Which consists of saying 'capitalism will fail and then everything will be perfect (after a short period in which nothing will be)..

No indication of why, how, or anything else. Just acradabra - PERFECTION.

You manage to be both Juvenile and senile at the same time. thats quite a trick.

Conghaileach

9th September 2003, 02:51

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2003, 03:06 AM
No-one is arguing that your vision of a perfect society is not perfect. By definition it is perfect. What anyone with half a brain will argue with is your notion of how to go about getting anywhere close to achieveing it. Which consists of saying 'capitalism will fail and then everything will be perfect (after a short period in which nothing will be)..

No indication of why, how, or anything else. Just acradabra - PERFECTION.
Well, actually, redstar has constantly argued that the period after the revolution (or the collpase of capitalism, or whatever) will be followed by decades, if not centuries, of trial and error - where the people try to hammer out a new society as best they can.

sc4r

9th September 2003, 03:33

No offence but so what ?

perhaps you misunderstood that the 'short period' I referred to does not neccessarily mean a few weeks.

The real point is that RS does not ever say just how it is that things are going to become so perfect. He does not explain why it is that human nature will undergo this quite radical transformation; he does not explain why it is that all his independent communes will co-operate (or how); he does not explain quite how his simulatneously uprising workers are going to organise their revolution , or even how they will know to get up for it; he does not explain why it should not be that (for example) 'capitalists' wont simply band together and form their own societies; he does not explain why it is that none (or few) of the communes will come under the sway of powerful individuals as always previously happened; he does not explain how (or whether) laws will be the same from commune to commune, or what will happen if they are different. He does not explain these sorts of things, or a myriad of other similar questions which are all fundamentally about organisation.

The fact is I dont think he has any appreciation of the value of organisation. I know for a certain fact that he has no appreciation of the complexity or problems involved, for example, in voting procedures (he quite happily informed me once that he 'rejected arrow impossibility theory because to accept it would mean that he was wrong'! - Now Arrow Impossibility is not a vague social theory, it is hard maths, you might as well question pythagoruses theorem. And redstarts basis for this statement - Is he a gifted mathematician who had found a previously undiscovered flaw? Nope - he 'sorta felt it must be worong'.

Regretably RS is a clown. He can postulate anything and everything because he will never accept that when facts and reality conflict with desire it is desire that must bend. He can cheerfully espouse positions which are mutually exclusive for the same reason.

Of course a lot of people will buy what he says. The labels on REdstar products promise you the best of everything and anything and they say that they are free. The trouble is that what is inside a REDSTAR own brand tin is nothing more than air. Hot though it may be.

Here is a simple one :

Hpw many shoes will you make in your ideal anarchist society. Will they all be identical, how will each commune know how many to make, what happens if one commune is better than another? who will fund the development of improved shoe making facilities, how will the shoes be distributed, what wil happen to a commune whose shoes are not wanted, etc etc. This is one example of the thousands upon thousands of such similar equations which a developed society must find a way of solving simultaneously. What (even in rough terms) is RS's method for solving them ?

mentalbunny

9th September 2003, 12:55

I'm sorry redstar, you obviously missed all my posts saying I'm not a die hard pacifist, if push comes to shove, then fine, but I'd rather avoid gratuitous violence if possible.

redstar2000

9th September 2003, 13:57

"Shoes, shoes, all God's children got shoes"...except for the reformist. Let's see if we can fit him a pair...extra large, of course, as they will also have to fit his mouth.

No doubt in the early months after the proletarian revolution, existing stocks of shoes and boots will be "appropriated" by the folks who need them (and some who don't).

Workers at existing shoe-plants will be deciding more or less on their own what to keep producing and what to discontinue. Since existing networks of distribution will have collapsed, they will also have to decide how they want to distribute what they make. They will try to get in touch with the workers who supplied their plant with the necessary raw materials.

Gradually, a new network or series of networks for production and distribution of shoes will grow up. The use of card-swipe technology will tell the shoe factory workers what people "like" and "don't like" every morning and unpopular designs will be discontinued while production of popular designs increases.

The shoe as "fashion statement" will probably disappear for several decades; the main objective will be comfortable, well-made, durable shoes and boots. This is especially important for women--who are ripped-off enormously more than men with shoddy, uncomfortable, and over-priced footware in the present system.

What happens if one "network" makes "better shoes" than another? Some will make do with the inferior shoes; nearly all will put their names down on the waiting list for the good shoes.

At some point, a centralized data-collection agency (card-swipe again) will notice this...and send a gentle suggestion to the "bad shoe collective" that they should either improve their shoes or, perhaps, make something else.

This will be publicized; people will know about it...including the workers who supply the raw materials to the "bad shoe collective". Those workers will feel like their efforts are wasted...supplying raw materials for fuckups to make lousy shoes. They will stop doing that and instead offer their raw materials to the "good shoe collective" who will make better use of them.

You see, the way things are now, no one cares about the "end-product" or its "usefulness" unless they are paid to do so.

In communist societies, people will care very much about things like that...not least because their social standing in the community depends on it.

No one wants to be publicly labeled a fuckup or part of a collective of fuckups. People want to take pride in their work...including what it's used for. They want to now and some can; but for most working people now, it's just grind out the crap and get that paycheck.

Thus, perhaps after waiting a few weeks, our reformist gets his pair of new shoes...for the asking.

When he left, I think he was still grumbling about the wait...but it was hard to understand him with that shoe in his mouth.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

sc4r

10th September 2003, 16:03

Who runs this ‘centralised data bank’? Who maintains it? Who maintains the network to which it is linked to all the millions of people? Who decides what it will and wont show? Surely these people have an awful lot of power, after all if they decide to show a favourite commune of theirs as producing highly prized goods then that commune benefits enormously. This is exactly the sort of power you say will lead to corruption in more conventional ideas. Why not here?
Observation 1 : Which shoes are everybody going to say they want, The cheap ones? Or the really great expensive ones? No-one is going to attempt to balance their requirements by recognising that they cant have the very best that is possible in everything. The result will be that your system conveys just a tiny fraction of the information that a market system would. It tells one only what is best, what is most wanted; it says nothing about peoples priorities.

But of course people will still have priorities. So what is going to happen is that everyone will indenture for the best. And a nice thriving black market is going to spring up as people find a way outside the system to get the combination of things which best fits their needs as a whole. They’ll trade the Gucci shoes which they themselves don’t particularly want for a medium quality shirt and shoe set which is what they actually wanted; but none of this info will ever affect the production processes, because it simply wont be reflected in anything that is being monitored. Your system contains no mechanism for conveying the combinations of needs and desires together with relative values people place on each. That’s it’s whole problem.

It gets even worse when you talk of production goods. Here there often will be a hard benefit in having the very best ‘widget’ instead of a lower quality substitute. Every commune is again going to demand the best because that’s the way they themselves can be most efficient. But it takes no account of marginal efficiency, Commune one light gain 1p by having superior widget while commune 2 might gain £100. Nobody is ever going to know which should receive which though; nobody makes an informed choice. The end result can easily be that a commune which is in fact very good looks bad just because another can take a tiny miniscule profit by having the ‘good widget’ instead of the ‘poorer’ one. In a market system price differences do this job. The ‘good commune/ company can and will bid more for the good widget because it can make from having it than the ‘poor quality commune’ will.

I Imagine you are going to tell me that both individuals and communes will refrain from doing this. Perhaps you would like to think about the ‘poor commune’ is going to know that it is depriving the ‘good one’. Answer it wont, because to do so it would have to replicate the entire knowledge of the poor companies business. And it has to do this not for just one other commune, but every commune has to do it for every other. It becomes a quite impossible level of complexity and effort.

And now I see that some communes are going to be restricting the supply of materials to others if they perceive that the latter is not producing top quality. Why exactly? Why are the needs of the producing communes so disregarded? I thought needs were always paramount.

Observation 2: You still did not answer the question about who it is that funds new development or how even the desire / need for such development is communicated.

You see RS its all well and good to invoke a magical black box (the centralised system) that solves the problem. But the real question is just exactly how is the black box going to work. All you have done is substitute the words ‘a centralised database’ for ‘I don’t know’. You’ve explained next to nothing.

redstar2000

10th September 2003, 17:41

Who runs this ‘centralised data bank’? Who maintains it? Who maintains the network to which it is linked to all the millions of people? Who decides what it will and won't show?

The people who like to do that kind of stuff; the people who enjoy complicated computer networks and links and data compression, etc., etc., etc.

Who did you think was going to do it? Wage-slaves?

Surely these people have an awful lot of power, after all if they decide to show a favourite commune of theirs as producing highly prized goods then that commune benefits enormously.

Of course they could "rig" the numbers, but to what purpose? The commune that they favored would still be up against informed opinion ("I tried their shoes and they sucked!"--internet consumer review #35,172).

And what would be gained? Some temporary social approval that would turn into its opposite as soon as the fraud came to light.

There being no material incentive for corruption means that there will be very little actual corruption (not none, just very little).

Your system contains no mechanism for conveying the combinations of needs and desires together with relative values people place on each. That’s its whole problem

I'm sure there must be some kind of "sense" in this statement...but I'm damned if I know what it is.

What combinations? What needs? What desires? What "relative values"? You asked me about shoes!

People will want the "best quality stuff" and that's what will get produced. If there's not enough stuff available, then there'll be a waiting list. If people want to swap stuff, then they'll do it...who cares?

Are you under the impression that communist society will produce huge quantities of crap "for the masses" and a tiny amount of quality goodies "for the leaders"?

Are you still "thinking" in terms of class society?

Of course you are!

It gets even worse when you talk of production goods. Here there often will be a hard benefit in having the very best ‘widget’ instead of a lower quality substitute....But it takes no account of marginal efficiency

Widget-making communes will be just as concerned with the end-use of their products as shoe-making communes. They will "check out" very thoroughly a commune that wants a new widget and will do their best to make an informed choice.

But "marginal efficiency" will probably be ignored. They'll be looking at the end-users' plans, their track-record, the quality of their membership and, most importantly, exactly what they plan to make with the widget, how socially-useful is the ultimate end product.

And now I see that some communes are going to be restricting the supply of materials to others if they perceive that the latter is not producing top quality. Why exactly? Why are the needs of the producing communes so disregarded? I thought needs were always paramount.

Needs are paramount. The "bad shoe commune" is deprived of raw materials because they are making shoes that no one needs; i.e., crappy shoes. The raw-materials commune does not want to waste their labor providing raw materials to fuck-ups who make crappy shoes.

You still did not answer the question about who it is that funds new development or how even the desire / need for such development is communicated.

No one "funds" new development in the sense you use the word.

But it might work like this...

Let us say that the Yerba Buena (formerly San Francisco) Regional Transit Commune decides, after studying transit use, that a new subway line stretching from downtown to the Pacific Highway would be "a good idea"...that is, it would move more people more quickly than the existing (and overcrowded) bus lines while using less energy to do so.

They would have many meetings with communes in rail producing, construction, electric power, architecture, etc. If agreement was reached, then ground would be broken for the Geary Street subway line.

Suppose this project competed for resources for another large scale project in the same region? Then, ultimately, there would have to be a regional referendum on the matter...and likely a very heated one.

Communes that wanted to do a "large-scale project" would have to persuade other communes that the project "made sense"...not in terms of "return on investment" (which would not exist) but in terms of long-range social utility.

Communism is not "Heaven" where people never disagree and live always in peaceful harmony. Real humans disagree about stuff all the time and there will be many heated arguments about the proper allocation of resources to maximize utility.

But the outcome won't be decided by your precious marketplace...the richest bastard won't win the argument!

Because there won't be any of your precious rich bastards!

We will, with any luck, have guillotined the lot.

Enjoy your new shoes.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

sc4r

10th September 2003, 22:44

I'm howling with laughter as I read that. You really do have no idea about how complex interactions can be, how difficult it is for people to express their true level of desire , or how inordinately hard it is to reach agreements do you ?

By the time all your communes have thoroughly investigated every other commune they might be asked to supply to, the end of the universe will have arrived. None of your communes are actually going to have the manpower or time to produce anything they'll be so busy investigating everybody else in fine detail.

Then they will all 'agree' to jointly fund a new development. You still have not actually answered the question of where the funding comes from? A central pool ? whoops for the second time you've decided to invoke the very central orgainisation that you profess to so dislike. Of course you dont use the words 'government' or 'state' but thats what you are in fact describing.

And no mate I dont fail to understand much that you say. I understand it all right. I just know it wont actually work in places and contains contradictions in others. I also accept that there is no reason why your 'central data bank' operators should be corrupt. The question is not whether they must be; but why it is that any other central co-ordinator must be according to you. Your arguments are sound enough for why they might be trusted. But the same arguments apply to others. Why? because we are talking of exactly the same sort of function.

The socialist market does not even allow individual wealth. The 'richest' dont have a cumulative advantage because of the capitalist market itself but because of what can be traded within it - namely property rights.

Frankly your level of understanding about economic and orgainsational issues is so low as to render your opinions completely worthless. Anyone can assert their ideas will 'just work' thats about all you do.

You seem to take a liking or disliking for words. The substance of what those words represent seems irrelebvant to you. Slogans are your stock in trade, nothing else.

Your statements about 'need' are revealing. It is a very strange distortion of socialist use of the word to say it is 'need as percieved by other people'. In other words not need at all, but usefulness. your society is not going to be non-judgemental (as you like to portray it) but almost nothing else. Any rogue 'widget' manufacturer is going to be capable of sabotaging almost any number of other concerns if the widget maker should happen to be competent at making widgets but less than competent at judging nuclear reactor plans (or shoe making abilities). Where does it stop? you asume everybody is going to be as competent as everybody else, at everything, and possess a Cray type supercomputer to do all the instaneous calculations that need to be done to make decisions. Its as I said laughable to HOWLING levels.

Here is some raw data :

person 1 : I'd prefer shoe A but could accept B or C
person 2 : I'd prefer shoe A but quite like shoe D
person 3 : Shoe D is best, C is OK
person 4 : I like Shoe B and also Shoe E
person 5 : Shoes B and C are about equal
person 6 : Shoes A and B are equally acceptable
person 7 Shoe D is best followed by Shoe A
person 8 : Shoe B is the best and shoe A is OK
person 9 : shoe A is best but B.C.E are all OK
person 10: Shoe A is very good, Shoe E is the next best

Assume their are 1000 people and that the above reflects the overall view.

Manufacturer A requires 10 units of stuff per shoe and has the capacity to make 200 shoes per year.
Manufacturer B Requires 8 units of stuff per show and has the capacity to make 400 shoes per year
Manufacturer C requires 6 units of stuff per shoe and has capaicty for 300 shoes
Manufacturer D requires 5 units per shoe and has capaicty for 300 shoes
Manufactuturer E requires 4 units per shoe and has capaicty for 300 shoes.

OK RS how much stuff is going to be supplied to each manufacturer and who is going to get what ? This should be easy. It is incredibly simplified and even assumes that costs are unaffected by volume production (totally unreal), it requires no balancing of supply for all the other hundreds of thousands of products and lumps all the 'stuff ' together.

Solve this, tell us how long it took you, then imagine the task multiplied by seveal million if not billions of times complexity. This is the problem you are saying every commune will solve for every other on an ongoing basis.

kgb_mist

15th September 2003, 20:44

"a revolution aint a teaparty." -Mao :P

redstar2000

16th September 2003, 01:50

You and the sheep-herder should form a vaudeville/music hall team. Here's his latest...

http://urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.ph...&threadid=54920 (http://urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=54920)

Both of you operate on the same theory: that if you make things sound sufficiently complicated, then people will just throw up their hands in despair and say "you guys figure it out and we'll do whatever you tell us to do".

Nice try.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

Comrade lex

16th September 2003, 01:50

While it would be nice to see more revolutions and communist "take-overs" among capitalistic societies, it is very unlikely, because it is a direct threat to the rich people's wealth. And when you let greed run your life, all you have is money, I would say that it probably will never happen. Sad but true.

sc4r

16th September 2003, 09:57

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2003, 01:50 AM
You and the sheep-herder should form a vaudeville/music hall team. Here's his latest...

http://urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.ph...&threadid=54920 (http://urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=54920)

Both of you operate on the same theory: that if you make things sound sufficiently complicated, then people will just throw up their hands in despair and say "you guys figure it out and we'll do whatever you tell us to do".

Nice try.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas
Not really chum.

I honestly dont think it needs a near genius to figure out that the economic interconnections in a large modern society are indeed pretty complicated.

If you doubt it try tracing how many producers are involved in delivering a newspaper to your door (this includes all the producers who contributed to the manufacture of the printing presses, buildings etc.) or do it for any other modern artefact.

After that convince yourself of how different peoples desires are by contrasting what two families with identical incomes choose to do with it.

Of course you could resolve it by saying 'You will take what you are given, like it, and be happy with whatever quality it is'. That would indeed simplify things; but it seems like then its you doing the authoritarian bit.

Or you could say that that people will be happy with much simpler non modern artefacts (yeah as if thats gonna happen, once people have something they dont usually feel great being told they can have much less).

You could prove me wrong and show how incredibly simple solving such problems is by even attempting the raw shoe data example (you wont of course).

Or you could tell us of a mechanism other than the one I suggest (a market) that is capable of resolving such questions.

You could do any number of things. But what you actually do is say 'Oh I'm sure it isnt really hard, dont worry, it will all be alright, trust me I'm Redstar'. Anyone fucking daft enough to accept that plan for running the world would desreve the incredible mess they would find themselves in. It would be like asking monkeys to run air traffic control.

I'm not saying 'leave it to me'; I'm saying we actually do need some idea of how these things are going to be sorted out. I'm saying dont be stupid enough to talk of junking such systems without any kind of idea of what you are gonna replace them with and some indication that even the people suggesting these replacements have any bloody clue at all how they are supposed to deliver results.

Or put more simply I'm saying you talk badly thought out drivel full of platitudes and not much else.

Vinny Rafarino

16th September 2003, 11:41

redstar2000

16th September 2003, 12:19

Did you have a problem with the proof that capitalism is not a perpetually sustaining economic platform RS?

I find it incredibly amusing that you actually just slagged me for being educated AND for posting a theory that is anti-capitalist.

No, I have no "problem" with your "proof" as such, much less its anti-capitalist conclusion. What I "slagged" you for was trying to intimidate people with a stack of numbers; as if to say "look at how complicated this is...better leave things to an expert like me." You even went so far as to taunt other members of that board, daring them to "play numbers" with you.

That's using your "expertise" (if such it is) in an authoritarian fashion. If Marx could explain his rather complex ideas in straightforward language (Wage Labour and Capital; Value, Price and Profit, etc.), I see little reason why you cannot do the same...except the desire to show off (a common failing of bourgeois academics).

The same thing that motivates the reformist: let any significant alternative to wage-slavery be proposed, and he will pile on like a rugby scrim with lebenty-zillion "complications" that "prove" the market, like shit, "tastes good and is good for you".

In spite of your differences, both of you squirrels are trying to collect the same nuts; you both are angling for positions of authority in some future social order on the basis of your "expertise".

Not a chance!

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

sc4r

16th September 2003, 13:12

Refuting daft personal attacks from you will surely bore me sooner or later; but for the moment lets continue.

At 46 years of age the idea that I'm 'angling for a position' in some future socialist society by means of posting on an internet site full of young lefties is the sort of idea that only someone barely in touch with reality could come up with. Thats even without considering the fact that I'm quite probably a dreadful candidate for office in any socialist regime. As a person I am massively competitive and combative. My peronsality is much more suited to Capitalism than to socialism and I espouse Socialism only because it is transparrently a better system (and probably also because its a minority view and I do enjoy a bit of a fight). I'm not remotely 'Good Socialist' material and I know it.

I consider myself considerably better educated in economics and socio economic theory than most; I have almost certainly got a far better understanding of organisational problems and realities than most here by virtue of both age, career, and inclination. So I'd kinda like to share it; thats the full extent of my motivations.

I actually go to a fair amount of trouble even when replying to you to explain and highlight why such things actually are problems (hard ones), and suggest the sorts of solutions that that to me dont seem to have great yawning gaps in them.

You seem to be focused on gaining a following of young people who will agree with you about your desires. You dont actually ever seem especially concerned with explaining how those things could come about; certainly you rarely if ever respond to critical questions about them with even halfway convincing answers.

My motivations are quite simply that I enjoy sharing knowlege and understanding that was hard come by, and increasing it. I'm not under the illusion that I know everything, nor that absolutely everything I say is correct. But it is a hellava lot more correct and better researched than 95% of what is posted here. It is not always as popular (because to get cheap popularity you promise people candy for nothing, some will be fooled and its easy work); but I know that it appreciated by some, and that, combined with the extra understanding I get, is enough for me.

What are your motivations Redstar? Not the grandiose one you claim of 'advancing communism'; that I dont believe, but your personal motivations.

redstar2000

16th September 2003, 16:06

What are your motivations Redstar? Not the grandiose one you claim of 'advancing communism'; that I don't believe, but your personal motivations.

Why shouldn't you believe it?

Still, I suppose I could phrase it in more general terms. I have devoted a good deal of my life to the cause of "humbling the mighty"--there is just something about the smug self-righteousness of authority as a concept that makes me want to call at once for the cart and the guillotine.

During the "1960s" (actually about 1962-1975 more or less), I expected to see a proletarian revolution when I was still young enough to enjoy it. Clearly, that's not going to happen...it's too late for me.

So what's left? Well, I've learned a few things along the way (even though I don't have a string of degrees like the sheep-herder) and see no reason not to pass them on to the kids...for whatever they might be worth.

You could say, if you like, that I am "compensating" for my own failure to provoke revolution by hoping the next generation or the one after that will do it...and that in some small way my ideas helped the process.

I would have liked very much to have been able to live in a classless society; I think I would have been a better human being who would have accomplished a lot more. Living in wage-slavery diminishes us.

Those are the breaks; we don't get to pick the times we live in. We do whatever we can and hope for the best.

And I mean the best...not the bits and pieces that might fall our way by chance or effort.

As a kid I knew back in the 60s put it: "we do not need to redecorate our cells; we need to tear down the prison itself!"

After nearly four decades, I've seen no reason to alter that opinion.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

sc4r

16th September 2003, 16:25

To me RS you dont seem to have learned anything except a whole lot of disjointed slogans, the texts (but not the meanings) of a whole lot of socialist and anarchist literature; and how to come across as resentful of anyone who has done well for themselves.

Ss I've said before you state views of what would be nice , and then say that we can get there if everybody except a few (who you would kill) behaves in that way. No shit RS; but what if they dont behave that way? What if for some quite 'inexplicable' reason you have to get there before people start behaving as if they are already there?

Or in other words what if they continue to behave like people have always done and dont suddenly mutate into RS pefect people? What if their brains dont suddenly become filled with a detailed appreciation of exactly what everybody else wants and start doing detailed calculations about how to optimise this (all coming up with the answer) ? What then RS?

Vinny Rafarino

17th September 2003, 00:09

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2003, 12:19 PM
Did you have a problem with the proof that capitalism is not a perpetually sustaining economic platform RS?

I find it incredibly amusing that you actually just slagged me for being educated AND for posting a theory that is anti-capitalist.

No, I have no "problem" with your "proof" as such, much less its anti-capitalist conclusion. What I "slagged" you for was trying to intimidate people with a stack of numbers; as if to say "look at how complicated this is...better leave things to an expert like me." You even went so far as to taunt other members of that board, daring them to "play numbers" with you.

That's using your "expertise" (if such it is) in an authoritarian fashion. If Marx could explain his rather complex ideas in straightforward language (Wage Labour and Capital; Value, Price and Profit, etc.), I see little reason why you cannot do the same...except the desire to show off (a common failing of bourgeois academics).

The same thing that motivates the reformist: let any significant alternative to wage-slavery be proposed, and he will pile on like a rugby scrim with lebenty-zillion "complications" that "prove" the market, like shit, "tastes good and is good for you".

In spite of your differences, both of you squirrels are trying to collect the same nuts; you both are angling for positions of authority in some future social order on the basis of your "expertise".

Not a chance!

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas
There used to be a time when you actually made some sense when you spoke RS. I'm sorry old man, but I don't think you have clear faculties any longer. You have resorted to bitterness. Is this simply due to the fact you do not understand economics? Perhaps, however I think you're just getting a wee bit long in the tooth.

Stalker.

redstar2000

17th September 2003, 03:49

To me RS you dont seem to have learned anything except...how to come across as resentful of anyone who has done well for themselves.

You have resorted to bitterness.

Guilty as charged! I am indeed resentful and bitter as hell!

Not least for those who "have done well for themselves" when I have an excellent idea of how they managed that "achievement".

Are you two toadies "doing well" for yourselves?

That's just great!

...what if they continue to behave like people have always done...?

Yes, indeed, what if the "evolutionary psychology" cranks are "right"? What if Marx and Engels and their ideas about classless society are just meaningless fantasies?

Well, then, I was "wrong" and you guys were "right".

Both of you can go have a drink together, toasting the eternal "rightness" and "justice" of the market and wage-slavery.

You both better hope things turn out that way.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

sc4r

17th September 2003, 07:22

OMG ! I dont think Marx and Engels were wrong about classless societies. I think you are wrong about how such a society could function. This is your usual accusation of last resort - tell everyone I'm in total disagreement with some socialist principle, when I'm in disagreement with you. Get it throught your old and muddled head YOU DO NOT DEFINE SOCIALISM; YOU ARE NOT THE ABITRATOR OF WHAT COUNTS AS 'PROPER' MARXISM.

Please do me a favour and post your view in the 'dictatorship of the proletariat thread'. It would be informative to see how you manage to squirm out of actually saying something which you know is actually directly opposed to a huge part of Marx's ideas.

Yes mate I have done well for myself. I've run businesses, and I've been a salesman (a very well rewarded one), and many ther things. I achieved it by working hard, applying my intelligence, and finding ways in which both I and my customers could benefit from my services. I have benefited from third world oppresion as has every perosn on this board. I would happily give up those benefits if it would do any good; but I wont do it simply to spite my face.

I dont happen to live in a socialist society, do I ? If you think that the way to aquire the power and funding needed for change is to live a life of poverty then I'd suggest taking up monastic orders. If you think that socialism is about misery and poverty then I reckon you are gonna get few takers.

Socialism is an attribute of society not of individuals. I am committed to changing our current society not to being at the bottom of the heap in it while it exists. I am like most people motivated by personal desires as well as desires for society. In other words I'm not a saint. If your ideas are intended only for saints then they are not going to work; because most people are not candidates for beafication, and they never will be.

Face reality - 90% of the young posters here so ardently espousing Communism etc. are going to totally turn their backs on it in a year or fours time. They are going to renounbce it completely and utterly, because they will see no way to advance themselves while retaining what you and your like have drummed into them is 'the proper attitude' . My way we retain them. My way they can do both.

WE even had one of them (one who has not all that long ago gone along with your denunciations of me) tell us a few days ago that he was in despair and was going to become a capitalist. He did not mean , as I do, that he was going to work within the system to change it, he meant 'I am going to renounce anarchism' ; because you have persuaded him that this is the choice he faces. All or nothing. He, like most, was going to choose all of capitalism and none of socialism.

redstar2000

18th September 2003, 04:15

Get it through your old and muddled head YOU DO NOT DEFINE SOCIALISM; YOU ARE NOT THE ARBITRATOR OF WHAT COUNTS AS 'PROPER' MARXISM.

And you are?

The fact of the matter is that we are all free to decide who we accept as comrades and who we reject; what ideas we think are "good" and what ideas we think are "bad", etc.

You don't like my ideas and I don't like yours. You do persist in the assertion that your "market socialism" is somehow both "Marxist" and a "step towards what I want...a classless society".

Naturally, I reject such claims as self-evident nonsense...as "false advertising", to use the language you would be familiar with.

Howl all you wish...I will continue to say what I have said all along. You are not a Marxist, not a communist, not a revolutionary. You are a reformist!

Yes mate I have done well for myself. I've run businesses, and I've been a salesman (a very well rewarded one), and many other things. I achieved it by working hard, applying my intelligence, and finding ways in which both I and my customers could benefit from my services.

I think that says it all.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

sc4r

18th September 2003, 05:38

You truly dont get it do you?

If you want to say I'm wrong about something noone is going to stop you. If you trouble to say why, then I'm not going to complain, the worst I'll do is explain why I'm not.

But what you actually do is say 'Scar is not conforming to Marxism'. As though this were, even if true, of any consequence. What if I were not? So ?

This is what I mean by saying you are first, foremost, and solely, a dogmatist. You dont get concerned with whether things might work, whether they are fair, or anything else of substance. You get concerned solely with whether they are, in your view only, according to doctrine.

What makes it worse is that your own views are in many respects so off the scale as far as conformance to the standard Marxist vision is concerned.

I dont actually know what it is that you want beyond that is a society that agrees with you on everything and where there is no authority, no experts, no centralisation, no markets, no comand structure, etc etc. In fact almost everything I know of your ideas is about what you DONT want (pretty much everything). I know what slogans you use to describe this Redstar heavan. I know you claim that everything in it will be perfect for everyone except 'Capitalists'. But I have not the slightest clue how anyone could possibly think that you have a viable path to getting there and I have no idea how it is supposed to work as a society beyond your assertion that 'it will'.

FistFullOfSteel

18th September 2003, 06:35

if so i join when im 27

Saint-Just

18th September 2003, 16:49

Please do me a favour and post your view in the 'dictatorship of the proletariat thread'. It would be informative to see how you manage to squirm out of actually saying something which you know is actually directly opposed to a huge part of Marx's ideas.

What do you mean by this; redstar2000 accepts Marx's view of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Why do you say you are not reformist. You say you follow Marx's ideas. And I agree that to some extent some of your theory is derived from the kind of left-wing theory Marx espoused. However, you do not follow Marx 'dogmatically' (as you would call it); very simply, you have reformed the original ideas of Marx. I am not saying whether reform is right or wrong but surely that is what you have done, reformed Marx's ideas.

sc4r

18th September 2003, 23:37

Originally posted by Chairman [email protected] 18 2003, 04:49 PM
Please do me a favour and post your view in the 'dictatorship of the proletariat thread'. It would be informative to see how you manage to squirm out of actually saying something which you know is actually directly opposed to a huge part of Marx's ideas.

What do you mean by this; redstar2000 accepts Marx's view of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Why do you say you are not reformist. You say you follow Marx's ideas. And I agree that to some extent some of your theory is derived from the kind of left-wing theory Marx espoused. However, you do not follow Marx 'dogmatically' (as you would call it); very simply, you have reformed the original ideas of Marx. I am not saying whether reform is right or wrong but surely that is what you have done, reformed Marx's ideas.
Like fuck he does. Read between the lines and what he says in total mate. If you can think of any way that 'the proletariat' are going to dictate exceopt through the medium of a state then do tell. He will say he believes it alright. The tosser will repeat that he follows absolutely any popular Marxist slogan.

But he will say elsewhere that he belives in Anarchist shite (also if popular) which is totally contracdictory.

He aint fooling me. If he fools you then you are not very perceptive. He dont fool a few others either. But he foold all the small boys and girls who know no better than to adore slogans.

jesus. If not following Marx's every word counts as reformism then there is not a regular poster here who is not one.

A reformist means something specific - It means someone seeking to reform liberal democracy; to make it more socialable, but still retain liberal property rights. It does not simply mean anyone who would alter anything at all about anything at all.

Marx lived in the mid 1800's . Amazingly a few people have thought of some things since then to impove upon him and bring the basic ideas up to date.

Equally Amazingly western society is not as it was in 1850.

It may shatter your worl view but I dont regard Marx as either a God or as a prophet whose every word is to be followed. He was a political philosopher uttering philosophy which seemed right then. Its amazing that his insights were keen enough to still have relavence; but not at all amazing that he is sometimes outdated.

I dont worship Marx. I use Marx.