Interesting quote from Chairman Gonzalo.

[Palingenisis]

"Being communists, we fear nothing. Moreover, our Party has steeled us to challenge death itself, and to carry our life on our fingertips so that we may give it whenever the revolution demands it."

Chairman Gonzalo.

[Bud Struggle]

"Being communists, we fear nothing. Moreover, our Party has steeled us to challenge death itself, and to carry our life on our fingertips so that we may give it whenever the revolution demands it."

Assuming that is true, why would you do that? Fight for a better life--sure. But death? There is no God, no heaven, no reward beyond this mortal vail. All you have is here. Why risk dying for something that might not happen? Why sacrifice if you can't see any benefit?

[Dimentio]

Probably because of martial honour or something like that, or because that your life is sucking so much that if you die, you could equally well do it in armed struggle. Probably the same motivations that are driving kamikazes and sucide assassins every place in every time.

[ComradeMan]

Manuel Rubén Abimael Guzmán Reynoso

He should explain that to the innocent peasants of Lucanamarca.

Empty rhetoric.

[Palingenisis]

Assuming that is true, why would you do that? Fight for a better life--sure. But death? There is no God, no heaven, no reward beyond this mortal vail. All you have is here. Why risk dying for something that might not happen? Why sacrifice if you can't see any benefit?

There is life in terms of duration and there is life in terms of its quality.

More often than not the fear of death, particularly in the individualist west, controls people's actions and thought often to an absurd degree...In order to properly live we must master the fear of death. The fear of death has no place at all in a revolutionary. It is over coming that fear which gives us the inner freedom to act and to participate in greatness.

[Palingenisis]

"I would have been for you the mediator between you and the species and therefore would become recognised and felt by you yourself as a completion of your own essential being and as a necessary part of yourself, and consequently would know myself to be confirmed both in your thought and your love. In the individual expression of my life, I would have directly created your expression of your life, and therefore in my individual activity I would have directly confirmed and realised my true being, my human being, my communal being." - Marx, Comments on J.Mill, 1844

This quote from Marx explains the genuinely Proletarian world view better than I could ever do and gives the underlying reasons for the willingness to sacrifice present in all genuine Communists.

[Bud Struggle]

Probably because of martial honour or something like that, or because that your life is sucking so much that if you die, you could equally well do it in armed struggle. Probably the same motivations that are driving kamikazes and sucide assassins every place in every time.

But the people Communists want to revolt, factory workers, etc.--their lives don't suck. Not great, but not bad.

The people that SHOULD revolt are outside the Communist sphere. And kamikazes and sucide assassins are religiously or pseudo religiously based. There is Allah or the God Emporer. No rationality there.

Why die for Communism? The quoted saying is one of the best ads for a nonviolent Social Democract--ever.

[#FF0000]

Why die for Communism? The quoted saying is one of the best ads for a nonviolent Social Democract--ever.

Well because Capitalism is going to literally destroy the planet but people don't really look that far ahead. Folks in the West are living pretty decent lives off of the bread crusts they've won in the 20th century. Ebb and flow, though. Ebb and flow.

But yeah I can see why a guy like Gonzalo would talk like this. Dude's from Latin America. I wouldn't wanna be poor in Latin America.

[ComradeMan]

People dying for causes all the time is a rather bad tactic, surely it's better that your adversary does- in a military sense that is.

Empty rhetoric of power hungry maniacs.

I notice the people who usually do all these statements about dying for causes are not always the ones actually doing the dying part.;)

[Palingenisis]

The people that SHOULD revolt are outside the Communist sphere. And kamikazes and sucide assassins are religiously or pseudo religiously based. There is Allah or the God Emporer. No rationality there.


Well if have to understand Marx's actual views on religion which he saw as the heart of a heartless world which came about through humanity's alienation from itself which made it project its idealized self unto God or whatever. There is a rationality there though its distorted and alienated.

[Bud Struggle]

There is life in terms of duration and there is life in terms of its quality.

More often than not the fear of death, particularly in the individualist west, controls people's actions and thought often to an absurd degree...In order to properly live we must master the fear of death. The fear of death has no place at all in a revolutionary. It is over coming that fear which gives us the inner freedom to act and to participate in greatness.


You are a hero.

And I mean that in the best sense of the word. :)

But not many people are like you. And the Bourgoisoie are counting on that.

[ComradeMan]

What's revolutionary about killing and being killed? People have been doing that for aeons and it hasn't really changed much.

Revolutions are won in the mind first and foremost.

[#FF0000]

Revolutions are won in the mind first and foremost

Naaaah you win revolutions by forcing the ruling class out of power, not by changing their minds.

I'm not saying EVERY sort of violence is a-okay in the name of Revolution but I think violence has its place in certain situations.

I don't see a situation like that coming around in America any time soon, though.

[hatzel]

Dulce et decorum est pro communismus mori :thumbup1:

[Bud Struggle]

Well if have to understand Marx's actual views on religion which he saw as the heart of a heartless world which came about through humanity's alienation from itself which made it project its idealized self unto God or whatever. There is a rationality there though its distorted and alienated.

Of course. If it is indeed all false. Personally, I'm Catholic (you being Irish must have met one of two of us. :D) And I don't believe God and his promises are false. I believe in the hereafter and all that goes with getting to the better end of the hereafter. I can die for my beliefs no worse the wear. I'm translated in to a higher sphere and have lager drafts with the angels for time eternal. Distorted or not--that's a good deal.

What do you have to offer? (You Communists, that is. ;) )

[Palingenisis]

But yeah I can see why a guy like Gonzalo would talk like this. Dude's from Latin America. I wouldn't wanna be poor in Latin America.

Well the Chairman came from the middle class and was middle class himself (being an acedemic) however I think the middle class that is made up of doctors, teachers, university professors and lawyers should be distinguished from the middle class made up of small and medium size capitalists...The former occupations will persist under socialism, they are useful to humanity.

Never the less from his relative comfort he was willing to endure the hardships of armed struggle and all that goes with (including the risk of paying the ultimate sacrifice...and indeed his current fate I would consider worse than death). How we approach the question of death and the ultimate sacrifice is very illumanating to how we view our life and its purpose.

[ComradeMan]

Naaaah you win revolutions by forcing the ruling class out of power, not by changing their minds. I'm not saying EVERY sort of violence is a-okay in the name of Revolution but I think violence has its place in certain situations. I don't see a situation like that coming around in America any time soon, though.

Your last quote sums up why your first quote is wrong.

I said revolutions are won first and foremost (;)) in the mind. Until enough people think the same way then it's futile and will be defeated.

[Palingenisis]

What do you have to offer? (You Communists, that is. ;) )

Seeing that you a Jazzratist I would offer you a re-education camp.

[#FF0000]

Your last quote sums up why your first quote is wrong.

I said revolutions are won first and foremost (;)) in the mind. Until enough people think the same way then it's futile and will be defeated.

Oh. Yeah.

Huh.

[ComradeMan]

The problem is with the whole concept of power and sovereignty.

Have revolution- seize power- become ruling class- supress revolution- become authoritarian- new revolution- seizes power- becomes ruling class....

Old wine in new bottles.

[Palingenisis]

Of course. If it is indeed all false. Personally, I'm Catholic (you being Irish must have met one of two of us. :D) And I don't believe God and his promises are false. I believe in the hereafter and all that goes with getting to the better end of the hereafter. I can die for my beliefs no worse the wear. I'm translated in to a higher sphere and have lager drafts with the angels for time eternal. Distorted or not--that's a good deal.


Well the actual ethics that Christ thought are not that far removed from Communist ones...The willingness to give all to serve others, even life itself is very much a part of Christ's teaching and the idea of doing so merely for a reward Im not sure would rate highly in those ethics.

[Palingenisis]

The problem is with the whole concept of power and sovereignty.

Have revolution- seize power- become ruling class- supress revolution- become authoritarian- new revolution- seizes power- becomes ruling class....

Old wine in new bottles.

Again and again the basic line of you are your mate is clear...."Its wrong to rebel".

[ComradeMan]

Again and again the basic line of you are your mate is clear...."Its wrong to rebel".

The rebellion begins in the mind and with the individual, otherwise it's doomed to fail- as history has shown.

Merely being anti- something is not being pro- something else, therefore it's not "progressive" it's just an alternate form of regression.

[Palingenisis]

Its worthy of note that not just Hamas and other Islamists but the secular PFLP and the TKP-ML has used suicide bombers.

[Bud Struggle]

Its worthy of note that not just Hamas and other Islamists but the secular PFLP and the TKP-ML has used suicide bombers.

Those badasses get 73 virgins for their trouble. ;)

[ComradeMan]

Its worthy of note that not just Hamas and other Islamists but the secular PFLP and the TKP-ML has used suicide bombers.

To what measure of success- leaving ethics aside?
:rolleyes:

[#FF0000]

To what measure of success- leaving ethics aside?
:rolleyes:

Folks are paying attention now, aren't they?

[Palingenisis]

Folks are paying attention now, aren't they?

Leaving aside the politics what Im interested in is what motivates and strengthens people to do such things?

[Palingenisis]

To what measure of success- leaving ethics aside?
:rolleyes:

You see back to its wrong to rebel (especially if you are a Palestinian in your middle class universe of course).....Personally I think what is important is to do the right thing regardless of how grave the consequences are (while of course not completely throwing out prudence but not making personal safety and pleasure the number one guiding light as it is in all to many products of degenerate capitalist culture in the west).

[Dimentio]

But the people Communists want to revolt, factory workers, etc.--their lives don't suck. Not great, but not bad.

The people that SHOULD revolt are outside the Communist sphere. And kamikazes and sucide assassins are religiously or pseudo religiously based. There is Allah or the God Emporer. No rationality there.

Why die for Communism? The quoted saying is one of the best ads for a nonviolent Social Democract--ever.

There is always a rationale. The rationale might be founded upon reality or what not.

In wars though, there are examples of soldiers who are sacrificing themselves to save their comrades. That is group rationality.

[ComradeMan]

You see back to its wrong to rebel (especially if you are a Palestinian in your middle class universe of course).....Personally I think what is important is to do the right thing regardless of how grave the consequences are (while of course not completely throwing out prudence but not making personal safety and pleasure the number one guiding light as it is in all to many products of degenerate capitalist culture in the west).

You are too simplistic. The greatest act of rebellion would be for everyone to stock up on candles, bread and water- and, and, stay at home for a week with everything switched off. ;) That would be the single greatest "no, fuck off, we rebel" in human history- whether it would happen is another matter of debate.

As for your deciding what class people are- well that shows one fundamental difference, I see the world in terms of classlessness whereas you are a proletarian chauvanist.

Doing the right thing? Hmmm... indiscriminately killing civilians. Marxism does not support terrorism.

[#FF0000]

Doing the right thing? Hmmm... indiscriminately killing civilians. Marxism does not support terrorism.

fwiw Marx supported Indians taking up arms against British colonists.

[Bud Struggle]

There is always a rationale. The rationale might be founded upon reality or what not.

In wars though, there are examples of soldiers who are sacrificing themselves to save their comrades. That is group rationality.

Yes. But wars are based on you and me in a foxhole and you saving me because we're "brothers." And we have Jesus to save us. It isn't that bad.

Now you give us no heaven or Jesus or eternal happines. We die like dogs. A sucky (and now adays in the First World a "not that bad") existence is better than no life at all--isn't it?

Why revolt?

Personally, I think it's Checkmate. Revoution is over.

[Palingenisis]

fwiw Marx supported Indians taking up arms against British colonists.

Another thing that needs to be pointed out in all this is that violence and generally the enforcing of authoritarian styles of goverment is not a sign of strength but weakness....The spate of Palestinian suicide bombs a while back was a cry of utter desperation. Marx also supported the Fenians (even hid some who were on the run during a bombing campaign in England). The problem with ComradeMan as with all liberals is that they judge actions abstracted from their context and so fail see what distinguishes the same action fundamentally when carried out by two different subjects in two different circumstances.

[#FF0000]

Keep in mind that I don't support the tactic of suicide bombing for a few reasons. Groups that use it tend to have this very unhealthy cult(ure) of death about them, among other things.

[ComradeMan]

fwiw Marx supported Indians taking up arms against British colonists.

That wasn't terrorism nor was it indiscriminately attacking civilians, i.e. workers too. But in the end it was Gandhi who won, and his tactic was overwhelmingly one of non-violence.

[gorillafuck]

More often than not the fear of death, particularly in the individualist west, controls people's actions and thought often to an absurd degree...In order to properly live we must master the fear of death. The fear of death has no place at all in a revolutionary. It is over coming that fear which gives us the inner freedom to act and to participate in greatness.
Do you think that in non-western places people don't have a sense of individuality?

If so, that is somewhat racist. I know some people from the Congo, Nigeria and other parts of Africa, they think of themselves as individuals just as much as I do.

Edit: In fact I think that could probably be considered dehumanization which is almost always an authoritarian, racist, and bourgeois method of control.

[Dimentio]

Yes. But wars are based on you and me in a foxhole and you saving me because we're "brothers." And we have Jesus to save us. It isn't that bad.

Now you give us no heaven or Jesus or eternal happines. We die like dogs. A sucky (and now adays in the First World a "not that bad") existence is better than no life at all--isn't it?

Why revolt?

Personally, I think it's Checkmate. Revoution is over.

Not only religious people have been sacrificing themselves for others. I don't think that people reflect so much when they are in a life-threatening situation.

[#FF0000]

That wasn't terrorism nor was it indiscriminately attacking civilians, i.e. workers too. But in the end it was Gandhi who won, and his tactic was overwhelmingly one of non-violence.

Yeah but for every guy who's been out there for non-violence, he's done it while other people went out and committed violence. The pacifists tend to be more long-lived and are easier to market, so they're the guys who get the credit.

I'm not saying that violence is the way to do things, mind. I'm just saying it's wrong to say that non-violence is what won.

[Palingenisis]

Do you think that in non-western places people don't have a sense of individuality?

If so, you're probably somewhat racist.

Of course they do....However people have become more and more atomized in western culture since the end of World War II. People see themselves less and less as belonging to a group that transcends their individuality while including it...And more and more just "themselves".

[Palingenisis]

Do you think that in non-western places people don't have a sense of individuality?

If so, that is somewhat racist. I know some people from the Congo, Nigeria and other parts of Africa, they think of themselves as individuals just as much as I do.

Just to emphasis the point that I made in my last post quoting this one.

A sense of membership in a collectivity does not mean that people have no sense of their individuality. Both can and do exist happily together.

[Dimentio]

Of course they do....However people have become more and more atomized in western culture since the end of World War II. People see themselves less and less as belonging to a group that transcends their individuality while including it...And more and more just "themselves".

You are sounding like Evola right now.

[ComradeMan]

Of course they do....However people have become more and more atomized in western culture since the end of World War II. People see themselves less and less as belonging to a group that transcends their individuality while including it...And more and more just "themselves".

Well- we have two issues here:

a) What is your source for such sweeping generalisations? That's a lot of people you are dividing up into your categories.

b) What do you want? Some kind of Orwellian anthill hive dystopia?

[#FF0000]

You are sounding like Evola right now.

Because of the atomization bit or because of the "group-individual transcendy" bit?

[Bud Struggle]

You are sounding like Evola right now.

For those of us less enlightened members of the forum:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Evola

[ComradeMan]

Because of the atomization bit or because of the "group-individual transcendy" bit?

Evola....... :crying:

DUCE! DUCE! DUCE!

Yeah it wasn't fascism's fault it was the people's fault..... Those damned Italians ruined fascism!!!

Palingenetic ultranationalism... ironic isn't it?

[Palingenisis]

Edit: In fact I think that could probably be considered dehumanization which is almost always an authoritarian, racist, and bourgeois method of control.

To quote Marx again...

"I would have been for you the mediator between you and the species and therefore would become recognised and felt by you yourself as a completion of your own essential being and as a necessary part of yourself, and consequently would know myself to be confirmed both in your thought and your love. In the individual expression of my life, I would have directly created your expression of your life, and therefore in my individual activity I would have directly confirmed and realised my true being, my human being, my communal being." - Marx, Comments on J.Mill, 1844

[Bud Struggle]

Personally, if anyone of any ability was quivering between being a member of the Bourgoisie or the Proletariat this thread answers the question.

Stock options anyone?

[#FF0000]

a) What is your source for such sweeping generalisations? That's a lot of people you are dividing up into your categories

I don't think it's really "out there" to suggest that there's a lot more of this "social atomization" in some parts of the world today. I don't know about Europe but I think we definitely see it here in America with things like "Section 8", where poor people are taken out of the city and sent off to government-subsidized housing in the suburbs. It's sounds like a good idea but it doesn't really help much of anything, on top of tearing apart neighborhoods and the support network that comes with it, leaving people really, really lonely.

I'll try to find some of the articles. They're interesting. One had a big section on the psychological effects of living in an area with a high number of condemned and abandoned buildings.


Personally, if anyone of any ability was quivering between being a member of the Bourgoisie or the Proletariat this thread answers the question.

It's not a choice, silly-billy.

[Palingenisis]

Stock options anyone?

No Greater love hath a man than to lay down his life...

Love another as I have loved you...

:blushing:

[Bud Struggle]

No Greater love hath a man than to lay down his life...

Love another as I have loved you...

:blushing:

YEA!!!


(Remember I'm Catholic--I don't read the Bible!)

:D :D :D

[Dimentio]

Personally, if anyone of any ability was quivering between being a member of the Bourgoisie or the Proletariat this thread answers the question.

Stock options anyone?

Actually, Palingenisis' rants are more a phenomenon which I associate with kids who have bourgeois parents and feel atomisation and disassociation because they never are empowered to achieve anything. Some of them are sinking into hedonism, while others are joining revolutionary groups.

For example hardcore islamism is mostly composed of kids who are born in wealthier families in the Middle East.

[Bud Struggle]

Nailed it. ^^^^^

[Palingenisis]

All men must die, but death can vary in its significance. The ancient Chinese writer Szuma Chien said, "Though death befalls all men alike, it may be heavier than Mount Tai or lighter than a feather." To die for the people is heavier than Mount Tai, but to work for the fascists and die for the exploiters and oppressors is lighter than a feather.

Chairman Mao Tsetung, "Serve the People" (September 8, 1944)

[Bud Struggle]

It all comes down to Mao, doesn't it?

[Palingenisis]

It all comes down to Mao, doesn't it?

Chairman Gonzola was a faithful student of Mao who applied his thought to the conditions of Peru and was also the first to recognize that Maoism is the third and highest stage of Marxism.

[ComradeMan]

^^^^^^^ His organisation were also murdering pricks, who failed.

Well done!

[Marxach-Léinínach]

Chairman Gonzola was a faithful student of Mao who applied his thought to the conditions of Peru and was also the first to recognize that Maoism is the third and highest stage of Marxism.

I thought Lin Biao was the first to promote that?

[Palingenisis]

I thought Lin Biao was the first to promote that?

You are possibly right...But it was until Gonzalo that that was accepted globally as far as I know.

[Dimentio]

Chairman Gonzola was a faithful student of Mao who applied his thought to the conditions of Peru and was also the first to recognize that Maoism is the third and highest stage of Marxism.

That is sounding an awful lot like... religion?

[Dimentio]

All men must die, but death can vary in its significance. The ancient Chinese writer Szuma Chien said, "Though death befalls all men alike, it may be heavier than Mount Tai or lighter than a feather." To die for the people is heavier than Mount Tai, but to work for the fascists and die for the exploiters and oppressors is lighter than a feather.

Chairman Mao Tsetung, "Serve the People" (September 8, 1944)



Everyone could come up with some cool quotations.

"Give a man fire, and he is warm for one evening. Put a man on fire, and he is warm for the rest of his life." ~ Vlad the Impaler

"Nothing for one man. Everything for every man." ~ Vlad the Impaler

Both quotes make as much sense as Mao's quote above.

[Bud Struggle]

That is sounding an awful lot like... religion?

Without heaven and the 73 virgins. Nobody's making a case here. You technocrats make a good case--but not one worth making a Revolution for.

I honestly don't see you Communists making a case for me to die for.

Idiots willl die for Mao as idiots died for Jim Jones--just because somebody is willing to die for something, it doesn't make that cause good or right or trumphant.

[Palingenisis]

Without heaven and the 73 virgins. Nobody's making a case here. You technocrats make a good case--but not one worth making a Revolution for.

I honestly don't see you Communists making a case for me to die for.

Personally the idea of living in some star trek reality sickens me.

I think under Communism we will see less technology and not more.

[Dimentio]

Without heaven and the 73 virgins. Nobody's making a case here. You technocrats make a good case--but not one worth making a Revolution for.

I honestly don't see you Communists making a case for me to die for.

I am motivated pretty much by what would happen after me. But then, that is probably the only thing motivating me. I am completely indifferent to myself and my life, and not interested in travelling, partying or having new experiences, or getting a house or anything like that. As long as I have at least one room, a secure income for the expenditures and an internet connection, I am happy.

The only thing that is a concern for me is that future generations of human beings should have the opportunity to live fulfilling lives in a world with a functioning ecosystem.

[hatzel]

Seems Vlad the Impaler is the hot topic in OI at the moment. Strange.

Seriously, though, basing a whole idea around some cryptic soundbites is stupid...

[Bud Struggle]

I am motivated pretty much by what would happen after me. But then, that is probably the only thing motivating me. I am completely indifferent to myself and my life, and not interested in travelling, partying or having new experiences, or getting a house or anything like that. As long as I have at least one room, a secure income for the expenditures and an internet connection, I am happy.

The only thing that is a concern for me is that future generations of human beings should have the opportunity to live fulfilling lives in a world with a functioning ecosystem.

And you are a nice guy.

If someone is slightly less nice, the Revolution runs into trouble.

So have a kid. Make the world better for him. You have two choices--make the ENTIRE world better for everyone or do something to make his life easier.

I've looked at this myself--a trust fund is much easier to come by than world peace or Communism.

[Dimentio]

And you are a nice guy.

If someone is slightly less nice, the Revolution runs into trouble.

So have a kid. Make the world better for him. You have two choices--make the ENTIRE world better for everyone or do something to make his life easier.

I've looked at this myself--a trust fund is much easier to come by than world peace or Communism.

Kids are the last thing in the world I possibly would want to have. :laugh:

Living with me is only working if you leave me alone for like 90% of the time.

As for my engagement in EOS, our methodologies of working and our ideas are ideas which are very powerful. I sincerely believe that we will mount the next big challenge to the status quo.

[Bud Struggle]

Kids are the last thing in the world I possibly would want to have. :laugh: Personal.


Living with me is only working if you leave me alone for like 90% of the time. Personal.


As for my engagement in EOS, our methodologies of working and our ideas are ideas which are very powerful. I sincerely believe that we will mount the next big challenge to the status quo. I'm with you. I read your site and you do envision a wonderful world. A perfect world.

I just don't have a clue how to get from here to there. Too much big money and self interest. And that's just on my side--on your side you have Trotsky and Stalin and Mao, etc.

[Dimentio]

I just don't have a clue how to get from here to there. Too much big money and self interest. And that's just on my side--on your side you have Trotsky and Stalin and Mao, etc.

Oh, no fuck.

We technocrats don't follow authorities. We follow empirical evidence.

We have an idea to make transition easier, which is basically to create a network of self-supporting units which are trading with the capitalist economy while creating an internal energy accounting system to benefit it's users, eventually owning a plurality of the resources and land.

Then a political change would be easy. The one who controls the resources also controls the problem formulation initiative.

[Dimentio]

Personally the idea of living in some star trek reality sickens me.

I think under Communism we will see less technology and not more.

Technocracy is not about Star Trek fantasies, but a way of managing resources.

http://eoslife.eu

As for your anti-technology... vaccines and anti-biotics maybe.

You really are an idealist.

[Bud Struggle]

But Demento you suppose that people are rational. It would all make sense if they were--but for the most part 90% of us are still monkeys.

[Palingenisis]

So you are basically a reformist?

[Palingenisis]

Living with me is only working if you leave me alone for like 90% of the time.



Thats a genuinely tragic statement.

[Che a chara]

Well the actual ethics that Christ thought are not that far removed from Communist ones...The willingness to give all to serve others, even life itself is very much a part of Christ's teaching and the idea of doing so merely for a reward Im not sure would rate highly in those ethics.

Correctamundo. To quote James Connolly:

"To the average non-Socialist Irishman the idea of belonging to an international political party is unthinkable, is obnoxious, and he feels that if he did, all the roots of his Irish nature would be dug up. Of course, he generally belongs to a church – the Roman Catholic Church – which is the most international institution in existence. That does not occur to him as atrocious, in fact he is rather proud than otherwise that the Church is spread throughout the entire world, that it overleaps the barriers of civilization, penetrating into the depths of savagedom, and ignores all considerations of race, color or nationality. . . . But although he would lay down his life for a Church which he boasts of as ‘Catholic’ or universal, he turns with a shudder from an economic or political movement which has the same characteristics."

[Os Cangaceiros]

"Give a man fire, and he is warm for one evening. Put a man on fire, and he is warm for the rest of his life." ~ Vlad the Impaler

That's fucking priceless.

[BIG BROTHER]

"Being communists, we fear nothing. Moreover, our Party has steeled us to challenge death itself, and to carry our life on our fingertips so that we may give it whenever the revolution demands it."

Chairman Gonzalo.

He feared the state enough to sign a peace treaty and betray his followers lol:lol:

[Property Is Robbery]

But the people Communists want to revolt, factory workers, etc.--their lives don't suck. Not great, but not bad.

The people that SHOULD revolt are outside the Communist sphere. And kamikazes and sucide assassins are religiously or pseudo religiously based. There is Allah or the God Emporer. No rationality there.

Why die for Communism? The quoted saying is one of the best ads for a nonviolent Social Democract--ever.
90% of suicide bombing in the middle east was due to the U.S. occupation. Everyone dies. Why not do so to make a difference?

[Revolution starts with U]

But Demento you suppose that people are rational. It would all make sense if they were--but for the most part 90% of us are still monkeys.

The irony is that we're apes, not monkeys (no tail). :thumbup1:

[ComradeMan]

The irony is that we're apes, not monkeys (no tail). :thumbup1:

Actually we are great apes or hominidae, as opposed to lesser apes hylobatidae.

Monkey is a bad term scientifically speaking, however it includes the platyrhines and catarrhines.

Hominidae split from the catarrhines approx 25 million years ago- out of the group of haplorrhini.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/60/Aegyptopithecus_NT.jpg/200px-Aegyptopithecus_NT.jpg (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/File:Aegyptopithecus_NT.jpg)

A better group term would be simians, or higher primates.

To assert we have no tail is not quite correct, we have no visible/external tail.- the coccyx is the last remnant of when we had tails, occasionally vestigial tails are reported in children.

[Dimentio]

But Demento you suppose that people are rational. It would all make sense if they were--but for the most part 90% of us are still monkeys.

That is true, but that is not talking against what I want to achieve. No matter how egoistic, thoughtless or irrational people are, the technocratic model would be possible, since it doesn't rely on human kindness but on natural characteristics of the resource base to function.

People decide what the technate produce. The technate produce it. Consumption limits are determined by natural barriers.

People are left to pursue their own happiness alone or within their communities.

[Palingenisis]

He feared the state enough to sign a peace treaty and betray his followers lol:lol:

We really cant be sure that he did....And if he did it was only after immense levels of torture and brainfucking.

[ComradeMan]

Personally the idea of living in some star trek reality sickens me..

Who's talking about "Star Trek"- that has to be one of the most simplistic and idiotic explanations of technocracy I've come across. What are you? Some sort of primitivist now?

Explain why it sickens you, out of curiosity.


I think under Communism we will see less technology and not more.

Barring some huge catastrophic event that might send us back to the stone age there is no basis for that statement. Technological advancement is exponential and under communist-democracy there would be even more once the chains of capitalist "patent" protection had been broken. In fact capitalism does in a sense hold technological advancement back:-
1) new ideas are patented and bought off to protect current business
2) time/intelligence/energy are directed into things like mathematical analysis of hedge funds etc when they could be put into other areas

Leaving aside political ideologies the world will move towards post-industrial modes of production and existence- it has to or environmentally we are going to have problems- advances in robotics and quantum mathematics will probably mean that in 100 years time (if we aren't extinct) the highest technology we have now will seem as primitive as a clock mechanism toy does to us now.

[Palingenisis]

Who's talking about "Star Trek"- that has to be one of the most simplistic and idiotic explanations of technocracy I've come across. What are you? Some sort of primitivist now?

Explain why it sickens you, out of curiosity.


No Im not a Primitivist though I find some of their critique of technology interesting and valid. Obviously its important as long as capitalist countries exist for socialist nations to match them in terms of technology. However once the goal of a global community is reached that necesscity will be no more. Part of the Communist programme is heal the contradiction between city and countryside....I dont see how glass towers and huge factories fit into that.

[Palingenisis]

Barring some huge catastrophic event that might send us back to the stone age there is no basis for that statement. Technological advancement is exponential and under communist-democracy there would be even more once the chains of capitalist "patent" protection had been broken. In fact capitalism does in a sense hold technological advancement back:-
1) new ideas are patented and bought off to protect current business
2) time/intelligence/energy are directed into things like mathematical analysis of hedge funds etc when they could be put into other areas


You are forgetting that modern technology developed under the logic of domination and the law of value. Im not saying that technological development will stop under Communism but it will progress under very different laws and lot of what arose under capitalism may well fade away.

"It would be possible to write a whole history of the inventions made since 1830 for the sole purpose of providing capital with weapons against working-class revolt." (Capital, Vol. 1, Chapter 15, Section 5)

[ComradeMan]

You are forgetting that modern technology developed under the logic of domination and the law of value. Im not saying that technological development will stop under Communism but it will progress under very different laws and lot of what arose under capitalism may well fade away.

but


I think under Communism we will see less technology and not more. .

Vague empty statements.

Without capitalism there would probably be more incentive for technological development- especially since in a post-industrialised world dependence on finite resources will probably become obsolete and require new technological solutions.

The environmental needs fundamentally determine technological advancement- necessity is the mother of invention as they say.

Posting cherry-picked "soundbites" doesn't help either. Was the polio vaccine against working class revolt?

You're also ignoring the whole issue of sustainability.

[Demogorgon]

Personally the idea of living in some star trek reality sickens me.

I think under Communism we will see less technology and not more.
To preface this, I think my opinion of technocracy is well enough known here. They have a flawed means to calculate production inputs and that makes the rest of the theory unworkable.

However what is this nonsense about less technology? Are we going to live out "back to the land" fantasies. Spare me.

[ComradeMan]

Talking to some members is like talking to people for whom time stopped in 1973.

[Palingenisis]

However what is this nonsense about less technology? Are we going to live out "back to the land" fantasies. Spare me.

No the contradiction between countryside and city will be overcome as part of a gradual process of humanity reclaiming itself after centuries of alienation.

[Demogorgon]

No the contradiction between countryside and city will be overcome.
And your concrete proposals for this and how reducing technology ties in?

On a wider note, has it perhaps occurred to you that the said contrast, at least in the developed world, is rather less pertinent than it was in Marx's time?

[Palingenisis]

And your concrete proposals for this and how reducing technology ties in?


I dont have concrete proposals...It is very necessary for the proletariat to be at least equal in terms of technology while capitalism exists...Im just speculating about a future global human society...In many ways humanity now serves technology rather than technology serving humanity.

[Demogorgon]

I dont have concrete proposals...It is very necessary for the proletariat to be at least equal in terms of technology while capitalism exists...Im just speculating about a future global human society...In many humanity now serves technology rather than technology serving humanity.That is very vague. Perhaps if you gave an example?

[The Douche]

The question is not really about how much more or how much less technology we will have in communism, but what the technology will be like/look like/be used for etc.

There is no doubt in my mind that communist revolution means the end (at least temporarily) of many things today which we consider quite essential.

We can't divorce concepts from material reality (well we can, but thats not useful to us as we move towards revolution) so technology is tied in with capital, technology as it exists is alienating, and communism means an end to alienated labor, so it means an end to capitalist technology. (and it takes time to supplement capitalist technology with new socialist forms of organizing labor)

[BIG BROTHER]

We really cant be sure that he did....And if he did it was only after immense levels of torture and brainfucking.

I'll give you that possibility, and had he not given up I'm sure the state would have done it anyways.

I just see that the surrendering shows two things.

1st a little bit of hypocrisy from gonzalo, his followers literally did fight til death, even I as a Trotskyst recognize the courage and heroic resistance of the women of the Canto Grande prison.

2nd the lack of democracy in a revolutionary party will come hunt you in the as. Had the PCP been democratic enough, the rank an file could have just choosen to continue the revolution in spite of Gonzalo's surrendering.

[Demogorgon]

The question is not really about how much more or how much less technology we will have in communism, but what the technology will be like/look like/be used for etc.

There is no doubt in my mind that communist revolution means the end (at least temporarily) of many things today which we consider quite essential.

We can't divorce concepts from material reality (well we can, but thats not useful to us as we move towards revolution) so technology is tied in with capital, technology as it exists is alienating, and communism means an end to alienated labor, so it means an end to capitalist technology. (and it takes time to supplement capitalist technology with new socialist forms of organizing labor)
What technology do you see us doing away with?

[Palingenisis]

That is very vague. Perhaps if you gave an example?

Lukacs puts it much better than I could...


http://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/hcc05.htm



"If we follow the path taken by labour in its development from the handicrafts via cooperation and manufacture to machine industry we can see a continuous trend towards greater rationalisation, the progressive elimination of the qualitative, human and individual attributes of the worker. On the one hand, the process of labour is progressively broken down into abstract, rational, specialised operations so that the worker loses contact with the finished product and his work is reduced to the mechanical repetition of a specialised set of actions. On the other hand, the period of time necessary for work to be accomplished (which forms the basis of rational calculation) is converted, as mechanisation and rationalisation are intensified, from a merely empirical average figure to an objectively calculable work-stint that confronts the worker as a fixed and established reality. With the modern ‘psychological’ analysis of the work-process (in Taylorism) this rational mechanisation extends right into the worker’s ‘soul’: even his psychological attributes are separated from his total personality and placed in opposition to it so as to facilitate their integration into specialised rational systems and their reduction to statistically viable concepts. [7] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/hcc05.htm#n7)
We are concerned above all with the principle at work here: the principle of rationalisation based on what is and can be calculated. The chief changes undergone by the subject and object of the economic process are as follows: (1) in the first place, the mathematical analysis of work-processes denotes a break with the organic, irrational and qualitatively determined unity of the product. Rationalisation in the sense of being able to predict with ever greater precision all the results to be achieved is only to be acquired by the exact breakdown of every complex into its elements and by the study of the special laws governing production. Accordingly it must declare war on the organic manufacture of whole products based on the traditional amalgam of empirical experiences of work: rationalisation is unthinkable without specialisation. [8] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/hcc05.htm#n8)
The finished article ceases to be the object of the work-process. The latter turns into the objective synthesis of rationalised special systems whose unity is determined by pure calculation and which must therefore seem to be arbitrarily connected with each other.
This destroys the organic necessity with which inter-related special operations are unified in the end-product. The unity of a product as a commodity no longer coincides with its unity as a use-value: as society becomes more radically capitalistic the increasing technical autonomy of the special operations involved in production is expressed also, as an economic autonomy, as the growing relativisation of the commodity character of a product at the various stages of production. [9] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/hcc05.htm#n9) It is thus possible to separate forcibly the production of a use-value in time and space. This goes hand in hand with the union in time and space of special operations that are related to a set of heterogeneous use-values.
(2) In the second place, this fragmentation of the object of production necessarily entails the fragmentation of its subject. In consequence of the rationalisation of the work-process the human qualities and idiosyncrasies of the worker appear increasingly as mere sources of error when contrasted with these abstract special laws functioning according to rational predictions. Neither objectively nor in his relation to his work does man appear as the authentic master of the process; on the contrary, he is a mechanical part incorporated into a mechanical system. He finds it already pre-existing and self-sufficient, it functions independently of him and he has to conform to its laws whether he likes it or not. [10] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/hcc05.htm#n10) As labour is progressively rationalised and mechanised his lack of will is reinforced by the way in which his activity becomes less and less active and more and more contemplative. [11] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/hcc05.htm#n11) The contemplative stance adopted towards a process mechanically conforming to fixed laws and enacted independently of man’s consciousness and impervious to human intervention, i.e. a perfectly closed system, must likewise transform the basic categories of man’s immediate attitude to the world: it reduces space and time to a common denominator and degrades time to the dimension of space.
Marx puts it thus:
"Through the subordination of man to the machine the situation arises in which men are effaced by their labour; in which the pendulum of the clock has become as accurate a measure of the relative activity of two workers as it is of the speed of two locomotives. Therefore, we should not say that one man’s hour is worth another man’s hour, but rather that one man during an hour is worth just as much as another man during an hour. Time is everything, man is nothing; he is at the most the incarnation of time. Quality no longer matters. Quantity alone decides everything: hour for hour, day for day .... ” [12] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/hcc05.htm#n12)
Thus time sheds its qualitative, variable, flowing nature; it freezes into an exactly delimited, quantifiable continuum filled with quantifiable ‘things’ (the reified, mechanically objectified ‘performance’ of the worker, wholly separated from his total short, it becomes space. [13] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/hcc05.htm#n13) In this environment where time is transformed into abstract, exactly measurable, physical space, an environment at once the cause and effect of the scientifically and mechanically fragmented and specialised production of the object of labour, the subjects of labour must likewise be rationally fragmented. On the one hand, the objectification of their labour-power into something opposed to their total personality (a process already accomplished with the sale of that labour-power as a commodity) is now made into the permanent ineluctable reality of their daily life. Here, too, the personality can do no more than look on helplessly while its own existence is reduced to an isolated particle and fed into an alien system. On the other hand, the mechanical disintegration of the process of production into its components also destroys those bonds that had bound individuals to a community in the days when production was still ‘organic’. In this respect, too, makes them isolated abstract atoms whose work no longer brings them together directly and organically; it becomes mediated to an increasing extent exclusively by the abstract laws of the mechanism which imprisons them."

[Palingenisis]

1st a little bit of hypocrisy from gonzalo, his followers literally did fight til death, even I as a Trotskyst recognize the courage and heroic resistance of the women of the Canto Grande prison.

2nd the lack of democracy in a revolutionary party will come hunt you in the as. Had the PCP been democratic enough, the rank an file could have just choosen to continue the revolution in spite of Gonzalo's surrendering.

Trotskyites like other revisionists have a tendency to lack the courage and heroism of genuine Communists.

And he did not surrender...He was captured by the enemy. Have you never came across his speech from the cage?

"We are here as the sons and daughters of the people and we are fighting in these trenches, this is also part of the combat, and we do this because we are Communists! Because we defend the interests of the people, the principles of the Party, and the People's War. That is what we have been doing, and will continue to do it!



We are here in these circumstances. Some think that this is a great defeat. They are dreaming! We tell them to keep on dreaming. It is simply a bend, nothing more! A bend in the the road. The road is long and we shall arrive to our destination. We shall triumph. You shall see it....


THE PEOPLE'S WAR WILL INEVITABLY WIN!"


http://www.blythe.org/peru-pcp/docs_en/speechf.htm


And the rank and file did continue on the struggle. However I admit that "personality cult" around Chairman Gonzalo was excessive and so his capture by the enemy caused a demoralization in the ranks that was vital for the counter-revolutionaries in their struggle (however this personality cult has to be understand within the nature of rural Peruvian culture).

[ComradeMan]

Lukacs puts it much better than I could...."

Yes, he wrote that in 1923.
:rolleyes:

If Gonzalo was so inspirational and brilliant, why did he lose?

Quite frankly I don't see much courage and heroism in punitive measures against unarmed peasants, i.e. Lucanamarca etc. If you want more courage look at Fidel and Che in the Sierra Maestra with the whole Cuban Army against them. Fidel landed with 88 men.

"Genuine" Communists? Who might they be? Anachronistic 1970-oid leftwing nationalists (contradiction in terms in my opinion) with luddite tendencies?

[Palingenisis]

"Genuine" Communists? Who might they be? Anachronistic 1970-oid leftwing nationalists (contradiction in terms in my opinion) with luddite tendencies?

An admirer of Che (who was rather fond of Stalin :rolleyes:) and Fidel has no right to accuse others of nationalism...All Fidel ever was a revolutionary nationalist social democrat.

[ComradeMan]

An admirer of Che (who was rather fond of Stalin :rolleyes:) and Fidel has no right to accuse others of nationalism...All Fidel ever was a revolutionary nationalist social democrat.

What do you mean admirer? This isn't a fan club and I don't agree with everything they did/have done since, but I can still recognise elements of their struggle and how it was different from Gonzalo's bullshit.

Seeing as I don't do personality cults I can weigh up certain aspects and points in a movement and it's leader without having to devote myself religiously to every aspect of their lives unlike those tragic-comic idiots who dress up as Che or Lenin to go to rallies.

By the way- the comment 1970-oid was there for a reason;)- just when did Che get murdered?

You should also know that he became very disillusioned with Stalinism after having visited the USSR and moved more towards Maoism. Had he lived who knows what he would have thought? However if you read Negri there is the suggestion that he was pretty disillusioned with a lot of things and hence left to continue his revolutionary struggle, albeit disastrously, in Bolivia.

But if we want to put it in simplistic terms, plenty of people look to Che as a symbol now, I doubt they will ever look to Gonzalo in such a way.

On a more personal note, you seem to be good at quoting others and posting soundbites etc but when it comes to your own analyses we seem to be stuck in the 1970s.

[Marxach-Léinínach]

You should also know that he became very disillusioned with Khrushchevism after having visited the USSR and moved more towards Maoism. Had he lived who knows what he would have thought? However if you read Negri there is the suggestion that he was pretty disillusioned with a lot of things and hence left to continue his revolutionary struggle, albeit disastrously, in Bolivia

I corrected that for you

[Palingenisis]

You should also know that he became very disillusioned with Stalinism after having visited the USSR and moved more towards Maoism.

Maoists uphold Comrade Stalin.

Most people on here would consider Maoists to be Stalinists.

[ComradeMan]

Maoists uphold Comrade Stalin.

I greatly admire him.

Read the rest... and preferably material post-1970s. in general.

WTF does it mean to "uphold" a dead dictator anyway? :rolleyes:

Stalin was a paranoid lunatic and he fucked his own intelligence service up too.

Go tell the Poles how great Comrade Joe was....

[Demogorgon]

Trotskyites like other revisionists have a tendency to lack the courage and heroism of genuine Communists.

Tell me, do you manage to keep a straight face when you write this sort of stuff?

[Palingenisis]

Tell me, do you manage to keep a straight face when you write this sort of stuff?

And the radical liberal goes on ignore.

[#FF0000]

Trotskyites like other revisionists have a tendency to lack the courage and heroism of genuine Communists.

lol

[ComradeMan]

I corrected that for you

Che criticised the Soviet methods that depended far too much on material incentives and force in order to augment production which just led to more alienation and basically confirmed capitalist or imperialist modes of work and production. He also did not seem to believe in holding on to power in Stalinist/Castroist fashion.

[Bud Struggle]

Go tell the Poles how great Comrade Joe was....

I can say my Mom (a Polish refugee to America) DID NOT LIKE HIM.

[Apoi_Viitor]

Trotskyites like other revisionists have a tendency to lack the courage and heroism of genuine Communists.

Where have I heard that argument before....?

"Never before have the peoples thirsted for authority, direction, order, as they do now. If each age has its doctrine, then innumerable symptoms indicate that the doctrine of our age is the Fascist. That it is vital is shown by the fact that it has aroused a faith; that this faith has conquered souls is shown by the fact that Fascism can point to its fallen heroes and its martyrs." - Mussolini

[Palingenisis]

lol

Fair enough given my exiled status I should be more humble....But old habits a chara, old habits....:blushing:

[Palingenisis]

Where have I heard that argument before....?


Did the fallen "heroes" of fascism die to create a classless, stateless, global community though?

[ComradeMan]

Did the fallen "heroes" of fascism die to create a classless, stateless, global community though?

You are the classic example of a useless idiot. According to the fascisti they were creating a better world for people like them... they were intent on uniting the world under fascism, but rejected internationalism. Name me one "movement" that set out under the banner of "actually we are power hungry megalomaniacs who want your tax money"? :rolleyes:

Exchange the words "class" for "race/patria/nation" and their rhetoric is frighteningly similar. ;)

Did Stalin create a classless, stateless global community? Or Mao?

Seriously- it's 2011- update yourself already!

[Bud Struggle]

Did the fallen "heroes" of fascism die to create a classless, stateless, global community though?

None I know of. :thumbup:

[Palingenisis]

Did Stalin create a classless, stateless global community? Or Mao?

Seriously- it's 2011- update yourself already!

No, the conditions did not exist for it...But they were laying the basis for it.

[Palingenisis]

Exchange the words "class" for "race/patria/nation" and their rhetoric is frighteningly similar. ;)



Spoken like a true liberal...Oh yeah, you believe that revolution is not a matter of classes and material forces but of individuals and minds.

Why do you call yourself a Communist? Hey I dont want to know that...You can join your trendy friend on ignore now.

[ComradeMan]

No, the conditions did exist for it...But they were laying the basis for it.

Yeah and AS Roma were winning 1-0 the other day and then lost 1-2 to Sampdoria.

The road to hell is full of good intentions, isn't it?

But in the end I am not interested in what might have been but rather what was...

[ComradeMan]

Spoken like a true liberal...Oh yeah, you believe that revolution is not a matter of classes and material forces but of individuals and minds.

Why do you call yourself a Communist? Hey I dont want to know that...You can join your trendy friend on ignore now.


I can't argue any more... it's not fair... I don't want to play... it's my ball so I win...

Grow up you pathetic little shit.

I notice you don't actually argue or discuss... but then you couldn't even spell your own username correctly.:lol:

[Palingenisis]

I can say my Mom (a Polish refugee to America) DID NOT LIKE HIM.

ypBWHtQAxzQ

Not liking Stalin?

So she prefered Hitler?

[ComradeMan]

^^^^^^ You are playing with fire here, re the Polish thing.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/99/Spotkanie_Sojusznik%C3%B3w.jpg (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/99/Spotkanie_Sojusznik%C3%B3w.jpg)

I5i5t2J7w1s