Dictatorship of the Proletariat [Archive]

Vinny Rafarino

3rd September 2003, 12:09

Foe anyone that thinks the should be no "dictatorship of anybloodyone" please answe these questions;

A] How will the GDP of a nation be supported and increased at at least 5% each year as this is the necessary "bottom line" factor economically to not only continue with economic stability but also provide the necessary means to establish the technological, industrial and social advancement necessary to advance your culture and society into a stateless environment.

B] Please also specify how the means of production will be re-adjusted to be compliant with an economic structure that lacks not only the value requirements needed to regulate production and distribution of goods and commodities but also the means to adjust this programme to fit within a global social setting. That means please explain as to how goods are going to be produced and distributed in a social system that relies on international market economies to guage product value and then in a social system that falls withing a global economic platform that has no "market" relevance.

C] Please explain how a policy that relies completely on dogma that goes against all logic of popular human behaviour will support an entire nation's need for food, housing, electricity, education, etc.

D] Please tell me how any person in their right minds would actually support a national or global function that has no ability to provide the proletariat with even the most basic human services that are completely necessary for civilisation. Remember, we are promising the proletariat a better life for fighting and dying for our ideaology, not an E ticket back to the fuedal age.

It's time to grow up anarchists. Either put up the necessary answers or get to the back of the bus.

crazy comie

3rd September 2003, 16:49

A True Dicktatorship of the prolitarian can't be a dicktatorship over them.

Conghaileach

3rd September 2003, 22:40

Dictatorship of the proletariat basically means proletarian democracy, which is the control by workers of the economy - controlling the tools of production and trade. As opposed to the bourgeois democracy which currently exists, a democracy by the rich, of the rich, and for the rich.

My 2000th post.

Sovietski Soyuz

3rd September 2003, 23:16

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 3 2003, 12:09 PM
It's time to grow up anarchists. Either put up the necessary answers or get to the back of the bus.
I doubt many of them can understand the content of your post, let alone actually answer the questions posed. :lol:

Good post though, comrade.

Vinny Rafarino

3rd September 2003, 23:22

Absolutely spot on CiaranB. Some individuals here are a bit confused over what exactly Marx meant by "dictatorship of the proletariat. I think they really need to read the Manifest of the Communist party.

It's odd I even have to see these posts on a socialist forum.

Anyhow, it's only economically feasable to have the masses own the entire means of production if they understand one small thing;

Wages will indeed be increased however the majority of the surplus value created from trading goods and ommodities will have to be used to operate the new socialist state. There is no other way to pay for the heavy cost associated with the social programmes that will create a classless society in conjuction with the devolution of the free market enterprise model that places said surplus value in the pockets of the elite.

It must be understood that in order for a civilisation to survive, more specifically a socialist civilisation that resides in conditions where free market capitalist enterprising still holds it's grip on the international trading market.

The only other option that gives the proletariat complete ownership of the means of production is heavy taxation by the state...It's really a half-dozen of one and six of the other in reality, but the word "taxation" presents itself with such a stigma to the masses already, it would be unwise to go that route. Especially when the petty bourgeois will have to be "coaxed" into interrating with society. Using the taxation method will not gain the favour of the enormous amount of people that will still favour capitalism. These people would have to be imprisoned en masse for re-education. A costly and needless venture if the right semantics are used in the economic policies of the state.

I'm still waiting for all you anarchists to answer my original posts. Unless of course the bus is filling up at an alarming rate.

Sovietski Soyuz,

Thank you for the kind words comrade. I understand what you mean but I thought I would ask anyhow. It pretty much kills two birds with one stone you dig?

Dr. Rosenpenis

4th September 2003, 03:03

Well...the underlying premise of a Leninist dictatorship of the proletariat is that in capitalism the "democratic" government works in fuction of class oppression by the bourgeoisie upon the working class. In short: they work for the capitalist class.

The Leninist dictatorship of the proletariat seeks to destroy this corrupt and oppressive government and establish a centralized governmnet for maximum equality while working in function of the working class, as opposed to the bourgeois government of capitalism whcih works in favor of the capitalist class. In short: a dictatorship of the proletariat as opposed to a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. This seems like an effective and objective plan to suppress the bourgeosie and it's oppressive class relations. But my doubt, however, is that the central government, instead of working in fuction of proletarian class supremacy, may become corrupt and work in fuction of the ruling class created by any centralized government.

The question we must ask is "In capitalism, why does the bourgeoisie have influence over the supposedly democratic governments?" Because they have capital, right? Capital is aquired through the appropriation of the labour of the working masses. In the dictatorship of the proletariat who, then, will have capital? The government, right? Why would the powerful government work to end it's profitable class relation to the proletariat?

Vinny Rafarino

4th September 2003, 06:28

Surplus value does indeed mostly go to providing the necessary funds to make a socialist state exist, however the way the masses keep the government in line is by owning the means of production. If the government fails to maintain the appropriate levels of socialist decency, the proletariat ceases to work, effectively shutting down the economy. You can argue that the government will "force" the working class to work but that argument is flawed.

The masses have just won a revolution against the most oppressive structure on the planet and as the peoples support is required to revolt, it is logical to assume that the people will have no problem counter-revolting against any state that strays from the path. Given their recent experience with revolution, one must assume that this new revolt would be even easier to conduct that the prior.

So in turn no new socialist government will go against any will of the proletariat as they are the ones that make socialism possible, not the state. the state's job is to make sure the GDP of the nation or nations continues to grow so the necessary changes and conditions can be met to dissolve the need for a centralised governmental body.

In essence it would be political suicide to go against the masses. No governmental body is that stupid. Remember, these people are the leaders of the revolution...the spent their entire lives fighting for this cause
That is how officials are "kept in line"

It's like the nuke issue;

No government would actually start a nuclear war as they would be destroyed in the process, effectively eliminating that course of action as an actual threat. The people will be expected to be completely politically aware and will be immediately expected to revolt upon any wrongdoings by the vanguard. We know this and understand it. It's pure logic.

Why is it so hard for you to think that there are educaded members of the vanguard that will defend the people with every last breath!?

Sovietski Soyuz

4th September 2003, 06:39

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 4 2003, 06:28 AM
Why is it so hard for you to think that there are educaded members of the vanguard that will defend the people with every last breath!?
I have often wondered this as well. If socialists have as deep a commitment to the movement as they should, "power corrupts" should not be an issue. And for the most part, it hasn't.

Vinny Rafarino

4th September 2003, 07:09

Damn, I hate getting quoted on spelling errors...Especially on the word "educated".

You bring up a good point comrade. "Power corrupting absolutely" goes against all logic and psychological human behaviour. A more appropriate way to say it would be as such;

Power can possibly corrupt absolutely.

This is why the proletariat has such a major responsibility in the new state. They have to allow themselves to be educated in politics. They can no longer simply be politically immature workers. Anarchists are quick to dismiss the idea of a state yet they provide no answers to the looming questions that are required to be addressed when executing complete political and economic change. As comrade Lenin said, they are simply too stuck in the future with no footing in the present. All communists and anarchist want the same goal, to abolish the state completely, yet they provide no assistance in the present. We could not even get one anarchist to even attempt to answer the economical questions I posed prior in this thread and believe me, there are MANY anachists who post on this forum.

They simply have ideal with no substance with a strict reliance on rhetoric. For example, rather than develop a plan to provide a stable GDP to drive a successful nation, they simply fall back on "absolute power corrupting absolutely". They say these words out of programming without even being aware that this statement in itself is not rational!

Anarchist themselves are their own worst enemy. I personally do not worry to much about their opinions as they simply are not relevant in the here and now. There are many very serious and important issues to address in the present that if left unattended will completely destroy all hopes of ever reaching a stateless society.

An ideaology without substance and actual structure is simply fantasy. Socialism is too important to the people of the world to be left up to ideological utopianism.

redstar2000

4th September 2003, 14:02

I cannot speak for "anarchists" as a group, of course, but some of them at Che-Lives have posted links to anarchist discussions of economic questions.

Instead, I'll just speak for "redstar2000-ism" (:D)...since I'm always accused of that anyway.

And we'll see what kind of sense we can make of Comrade RAF's questions...

How will the GDP of a nation be supported and increased at at least 5% each year as this is the necessary "bottom line" factor economically to not only continue with economic stability but also provide the necessary means to establish the technological, industrial and social advancement necessary to advance your culture and society into a stateless environment.

A GDP growth rate of 5% per year is a figure drawn from someone's rectal orifice, of course. In fact "GDP" (Gross Domestic Product) is a bourgeois artifact itself--a measurement of certain kinds of economic activity...it has no "objective" reality in itself, though it partially reflects objective reality.

So, let's rephrase it in sensible terms: what will happen economically after a proletarian revolution?

In "my" scenario, the transition to communist society begins at once...perhaps with some very basic measures:

1. Public Transit is now free.

2. Water, Gas, Electricity are now free.

3. Basic Foodstuffs (probably distributed from warehouse-type distribution centers) are now free.

4. Residential rents are abolished; home mortgages are dissolved.

5. Rationing is introduced to cope with local shortages.

6. All of the major corporations become the temporary "property" of the workers at those corporations; all socially useless or harmful production is curtailed or abolished at once and resources are re-directed toward socially useful production.

7. Efforts begin at once to restore regional circulation of necessary goods and subsequently expanded into national and international circulation...but overall, the transit of goods will probably decrease markedly in communist society; most things that you use, eat, wear, etc. will probably be locally produced.

8. Temporary collectives of various sizes will be created, modified, and even abolished to accomplish temporary economic purposes...there will be a great deal of "trial and error" in the years and even decades immediately following proletarian revolution. We will learn what it takes to make communist society "work" over a period of time.

9. All such collectives, of course, must be controlled by the workers who take part in them. Gradually, they will probably come under the control of even larger collectives...but the principle of rank-and-file working class control is not negotiable.

Things will be very different economically (and in other ways) than they are now...a point that is lost on reformists and Leninists alike.

Please explain how a policy that relies completely on dogma that goes against all logic of popular human behavior will support an entire nation's need for food, housing, electricity, education, etc.

This is a "rhetorical" question, of course, as there is no such thing as the "logic of popular human behavior". It reflects Comrade RAF's infatuation with bourgeois "evolutionary psychology"...a pseudo-science of recent origins invented to "explain" (justify) capitalist society. I highly recommend Alas, Poor Darwin--Arguments Against Evolutionary Psychology, edited by Hilary & Stephen Rose, as a refreshing antidote to such trash.

Please tell me how any person in their right minds would actually support a national or global function that has no ability to provide the proletariat with even the most basic human services that are completely necessary for civilisation.

In other words, put the workers in charge of things and "everything will go to hell".

Every capitalist would agree.

Wages will indeed be increased however the majority of the surplus value created from trading goods and commodities will have to be used to operate the new socialist state. There is no other way to pay for the heavy cost associated with the social programmes that will create a classless society in conjunction with the devolution of the free market enterprise model that places said surplus value in the pockets of the elite.

In theory, this "socialist state" just collects surplus value and re-distributes it in the form of a social product. In practice, some of it "sticks" to the hands of the people doing the re-distribution...and they become corrupt and then they become a new capitalist class.

At least, that's what has happened every time it's been tried.

Surplus value does indeed mostly go to providing the necessary funds to make a socialist state exist, however the way the masses keep the government in line is by owning the means of production. If the government fails to maintain the appropriate levels of socialist decency, the proletariat ceases to work, effectively shutting down the economy. You can argue that the government will "force" the working class to work but that argument is flawed.

Where is the flaw? Isn't that what happened?

The masses have just won a revolution against the most oppressive structure on the planet and as the peoples support is required to revolt, it is logical to assume that the people will have no problem counter-revolting against any state that strays from the path. Given their recent experience with revolution, one must assume that this new revolt would be even easier to conduct than the prior.

It might be "logical", but it certainly didn't happen in the USSR. Quite the contrary, by the mid-1920s (after several years of the NEP--certainly a "betrayal" of the "socialist decencies"!), the Russian working class was utterly demoralized and apathetic. Their reaction to the "titanic struggle" (:lol:) between Stalin and Trotsky was one of total indifference.

It seems to me that the experience of participating in a great revolutionary upheaval only to find that all the old shit has returned does not inspire fresh revolutionary enthusiasm but instead breeds hopelessness and depression.

Historically, genuine mass revolution is a "once-in-a-lifetime" experience; it is extraordinarily rare to even live long enough for two such events to occur, much less to be physically and mentally able to participate in both of them.

In essence it would be political suicide to go against the masses. No governmental body is that stupid. Remember, these people are the leaders of the revolution...they spent their entire lives fighting for this cause.

Bah! There are many ways for any government to pretend to "serve" the masses while, in fact, exploiting and oppressing them. We see it all the time.

As to "lifetime dedication", what does that mean in reality? Do we say at a certain point "Comrade X has spent Y number of years in the movement, therefore it is impossible for him to betray the revolution or even make a really serious mistake."?

Your "past record", if negative, weighs heavily against you. Your "past record", if positive, is neutral.

No one can legitimately appeal for support on the basis of "hey, trust me, have I ever let you down?". That might be a sound basis for extending someone a (small) personal loan...but only a fool would treat serious political questions in such a careless fashion.

Forget "trust"...keep the power in the hands of the working class itself. You are always free to extend a respectful hearing to a veteran revolutionary...but never forget that the power of decision must remain in your hands and the hands of your class.

The people will be expected to be completely politically aware and will be immediately expected to revolt upon any wrongdoings by the vanguard. We know this and understand it. It's pure logic.

Again, it may be "logical" but turned out in practice to be otherwise. And, when you stop and think about it, why should the working class have to overthrow one corrupt "vanguard" after another?

Wouldn't it be easier just to make one proletarian revolution, establish communism, and move on?

Why is it so hard for you to think that there are educated members of the vanguard that will defend the people with every last breath!?

Experience!

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

crazy comie

4th September 2003, 15:05

I agree with almost all of that redstar2000

Dr. Rosenpenis

4th September 2003, 21:23

Dr. Rosenpenis

4th September 2003, 22:17

RAF, I have another question for you: You're a follower of Stalinism and the Leninist ideology used in the formation of the USSR, then will you please explain what went wrong. If Leninism is so great, then why did it fail miserably? Weren't the people oppressed? Were the leaders corrupt? I thought you said that corruption wouldn't happen since the working class would have ownership of the means of production and thus would have a strong influence over the government? If the working class had so much power, then why did the Soviet Union expand abroad into Eastern Europe, was the proletariat really interested in aquiring satelite states? Were they so interested in olympic competions? Were they so interested in going to space? All of these things show how opportunistic, imperialistic, and beurocratic the soviet union became. But why, comarde, why? If what you say is true then none of this should've happened, no? Is your ideology flawed perhaps? :unsure:

redstar2000

4th September 2003, 22:43

Redstar, don't you think that it's a tad unrealistic to expect the workers to assume direct power right after the revolution? Obviously, the working class will have influence over the government, as they will be the owners and operators of the means of production.

No, I don't think it's the least bit "unrealistic"...in fact, I don't think you can even have a proletarian revolution where that doesn't happen.

The historical record suggests (Russia, Spain) that wide sectors of the working class try to exercise real power, only to be thwarted by ambitious and tightly-organized minorities who "know what's best" for the class as a whole...or at least think they do and are quite willing to murder anyone who thinks otherwise.

This is actually a symptom of the backwardness of the working class of the 20th century.

What has to be grasped is that the working class of then (or now) is not the working class that will make proletarian revolution and harvest its benefits.

Class consciousness will be enormously more advanced than ever before in history. The general level of knowledge will be far greater. The working class will be far more prepared to rule than has ever been the case before.

Things change.

But what you suggest will actually lead to the proletariat's loss of power, since without a central government there will be a lack of equality and unity, not to mention it will be impossible to quickly and successfully suppress the bourgeoisie as well as to accomplish many other goals of marxism.

Failure is always a possibility. There are no guarantees in history. But if you abandon what you really want in order to "save the revolution" then you have already lost!

Let the old ruling class defeat us, if they can...we shall not defeat ourselves.

I agree there will definitely not be either unity or equality at the beginning; what there will be are honest attempts to achieve those things on the basis of the democratic will of the working class.

Revolution, as Engels observed, is an authoritarian act. No one should pretend that even in the days and weeks immediately following proletarian revolution that force will not be used, and not just against the old bourgeoisie.

There will almost certainly be a minority of the working class itself that, while favoring the revolution in general terms, will also see it as an opportunity to "set themselves up" as an privileged elite with special powers, luxuries, etc. They will have to be compelled to abandon those ambitions, by any means necessary.

I do not expect racism or sexism to be a significant factor after the revolution...nevertheless, there will almost certainly be "pockets" of racist/sexist opposition, and they must be dealt with in a forceful manner.

Along with the old bourgeoisie, we will probably find a significant number of religious counter-revolutionaries. A vigorous struggle against the symbols of religion in public life should demoralize most of them...but the hard-core will have to be handled the same way other active counter-revolutionaries are handled.

The main thing is that every measure we take to "defend" the revolution must be carefully evaluated as to its potential for undermining and destroying the revolution.

One of the prominent leaders of fascism said back in the 1930s "In order for our enemies to defeat us, they must become like us."

That's a trap we can avoid...and must!

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

4th September 2003, 23:13

Redstar every single political party would hapiuly promise FREE eerything, as you do. Provided, of course, they never had to deliver. If they had to do it, they'd have to address the question RAF was posing. Not HOW MUCH CAN YOU PROMISE *abswer anything you like) but WHAT CAN YOIU DELIVER and crucially WHY WHY WHY, HOW , HOW , HOW.

Its the latter bits that require a bit more than, as RAF said, rhetoric and dogma.

We are not talking of ewhat would be nice, buit of what can be achieved. Care to demonstrate your budget? roughly ? at all ?

Dr. Rosenpenis

4th September 2003, 23:38

Do you think that right after we win the revolution classes will just somehow dissappear, Redstar? No, comarde, they will not. As long as there are classes, a state is necessary. What we must do is turn the tables and create a government that will bring the working class to power so that the bourgeoisie can be suppressed as an oppressive class and a classless, stateless society can be achived. The working class will not be manipulated by the government because they will be the leading class, they will have ownership of the means of production and therefore complete influence over a revolutionary government. Makes more sense to me than anarchism, eh?

redstar2000

5th September 2003, 00:16

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2003, 06:13 PM
Redstar every single political party would happily promise FREE everything, as you do. Provided, of course, they never had to deliver. If they had to do it, they'd have to address the question RAF was posing. Not HOW MUCH CAN YOU PROMISE (answer anything you like) but WHAT CAN YOU DELIVER and crucially WHY WHY WHY, HOW , HOW , HOW.

It's the latter bits that require a bit more than, as RAF said, rhetoric and dogma.

We are not talking of what would be nice, but of what can be achieved. Care to demonstrate your budget? roughly ? at all ?
Even if my "crystal ball" were functioning and I could answer such ridiculous--and rhetorical--questions, why should I bother?

The Leninists say, in very obscure and allegorical words, that they will "make" their system work at gunpoint.

Well, that's been tried and it didn't work so good after all.

You reformists just want to add a "socialist" gloss to wage-slavery and smugly point out that, after all, we "know" that wage-slavery "works."

Yes, you have, no doubt, hard-drives full of very "practical" plans...for a slightly more humane version of what we have now!

Thus, no matter how "practical" the measures that I or any real communist might advocate, you would dismiss them with a wave of your hand.

They don't conform to the paradigm of wage-slavery..."and are therefore impossible". Next thing you know, you'll be falling back on "evolutionary psychology".

I very much doubt if anyone will bother with formal "budgets" even in the earliest years of communist society. When currency is abolished altogether, the word itself will become archaic...are you intimately familiar with all the technical terms that existed in the feudal economy?

Do you even care? Does anyone?

:redstar2000:

PS: Speaking of "free", here is a practical demonstration. Get yourself a free spell-checking program for your semi-literate posts...

http://www.iespell.com/

Use it. It won't help your bad ideas any, but at least it will save me some time when I have to quote you.

___________________________

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

Dr. Rosenpenis

5th September 2003, 00:52

Redstar, though I have lots of respect for you, you are the one spouting off rhetoric this time. Your main point about Leninism resulting in wage slavery has already been disproven in my previous post, you must not have catched that part.

Vinny Rafarino

5th September 2003, 00:55

Well it appears the hack is back to critisis me again, let's see if his bullshit floats this time;

A GDP growth rate of 5% per year is a figure drawn from someone's rectal orifice, of course. In fact "GDP" (Gross Domestic Product) is a bourgeois artifact itself--a measurement of certain kinds of economic activity...it has no "objective" reality in itself, though it partially reflects objective reality.

So, let's rephrase it in sensible terms: what will happen economically after a proletarian revolution?

I suppose again you were not clear as to the fact we are talking about socialism not communism. Where does the 5% number come from. I calculated it myself based on past economic models and Okun's law. The USA for instance averages 2.5-3.5% annual growth every and is currently the most powerful economic model on the globe with over 10,000,000,000,000,000 in US dollars. they also have very little social spending. To maintain the necessary economic capabililities without investment to operate enormous social programmes, without over-taxing the workers, you will need at least a 5% growth model. Take a class in economics pops.

Just try and operate a socialist or even communist society under conditions that capitalism still controls the international market and therefore value and see what happens. Your pretty little "society" would not last a month in reality.

So, let's rephrase it in sensible terms: what will happen economically after a proletarian revolution?

In "my" scenario, the transition to communist society begins at once...perhaps with some very basic measures:

1. Public Transit is now free.

2. Water, Gas, Electricity are now free.

3. Basic Foodstuffs (probably distributed from warehouse-type distribution centers) are now free.

4. Residential rents are abolished; home mortgages are dissolved.

5. Rationing is introduced to cope with local shortages.

6. All of the major corporations become the temporary "property" of the workers at those corporations; all socially useless or harmful production is curtailed or abolished at once and resources are re-directed toward socially useful production.

7. Efforts begin at once to restore regional circulation of necessary goods and subsequently expanded into national and international circulation...but overall, the transit of goods will probably decrease markedly in communist society; most things that you use, eat, wear, etc. will probably be locally produced.

8. Temporary collectives of various sizes will be created, modified, and even abolished to accomplish temporary economic purposes...there will be a great deal of "trial and error" in the years and even decades immediately following proletarian revolution. We will learn what it takes to make communist society "work" over a period of time.

9. All such collectives, of course, must be controlled by the workers who take part in them. Gradually, they will probably come under the control of even larger collectives...but the principle of rank-and-file working class control is not negotiable.

Things will be very different economically (and in other ways) than they are now...a point that is lost on reformists and Leninists alike.

Good god you are an absolute windbag. All bullshit and no substance, typical anarchist drivel;

1] How will you provide the necessary funds in a socialist environment to pay for free public transportation.

2] How will you pay for free utilities in a socialist environment.

3] How will you pay for free food sevices. How will production me guaged. How will distrubution be guaged and carried out How will you counter over-supply? What procedures will you use to assess these problems and how the fuck will you pay for the solutions while maintaining an economy that won't fucking collapse in a week....Wow simple fucking questions you dodged in your "fine" post of bullshit.

4] As housing consits of 38% of the global GDP you are once again full of shit. How will you recoup the dollars that are lost? How pops, how! Remember, this is under REAL LIFE socialist conditions, not your bullshit fantasy world.

5] Shortages!! What the hell is wrong with you? You think for one minute that the masses are going to put up with "shortages" and rationing in this fucking millenium! this is not 1920 pops! You are a lost cause.

6] HOW will it be redirected pops, HOW. I can easily say I can get to the moon. HOW I would do it is a different story all together.

7] How are you going to pay for these "efforts" pops? What exactly do these "efforts" consist of?

8] And what is to be done on those"trial and error" years without a means to stabalise and grow the economy? EH? No answer pops? Pull your head out of your arse. If we follow your model of rhetoric, then then we all may as well give the fuck up and start saving for a Porsche.

9] Just as I said in my previous post, ALL anarchist have their heads in the future with ABSOLUTELY NO FOOTING IN THE PRESENT. RS is the perfect textbook example of absurd utopian idealism. In other words, useless BULLSHIT.

This is a "rhetorical" question, of course, as there is no such thing as the "logic of popular human behavior". It reflects Comrade RAF's infatuation with bourgeois "evolutionary psychology"...a pseudo-science of recent origins invented to "explain" (justify) capitalist society. I highly recommend Alas, Poor Darwin--Arguments Against Evolutionary Psychology, edited by Hilary & Stephen Rose, as a refreshing antidote to such trash.

Yeah yeah, whatever pops. I'm sorry you are not smart enough to understand it. Keep plodding away at your little fantasy world mate.

Bah! There are many ways for any government to pretend to "serve" the masses while, in fact, exploiting and oppressing them. We see it all the time. Historically, genuine mass revolution is a "once-in-a-lifetime" experience; it is extraordinarily rare to even live long enough for two such events to occur, much less to be physically and mentally able to participate in both of them.

In essence it would be political suicide to go against the masses. No governmental body is that stupid. Remember, these people are the leaders of the revolution...they spent their entire lives fighting for this cause.

Bah! There are many ways for any government to pretend to "serve" the masses while, in fact, exploiting and oppressing them. We see it all the time.

As to "lifetime dedication", what does that mean in reality? Do we say at a certain point "Comrade X has spent Y number of years in the movement, therefore it is impossible for him to betray the revolution or even make a really serious mistake."?

Your "past record", if negative, weighs heavily against you. Your "past record", if positive, is neutral.

No one can legitimately appeal for support on the basis of "hey, trust me, have I ever let you down?". That might be a sound basis for extending someone a (small) personal loan...but only a fool would treat serious political questions in such a careless fashion.

Forget "trust"...keep the power in the hands of the working class itself. You are always free to extend a respectful hearing to a veteran revolutionary...but never forget that the power of decision must remain in your hands and the hands of your class.

You completey missed the point. No shocking at all.

As far as the rest goes....There is not much to say. Support anarchism and you support the downfall of the revolution. Listening to windbags like this fool here will only serve one thing;

Redstar2000's enormous ego.

Again, it may be "logical" but turned out in practice to be otherwise. And, when you stop and think about it, why should the working class have to overthrow one corrupt "vanguard" after another?

Wouldn't it be easier just to make one proletarian revolution, establish communism, and move on?

Once again, you missed the point. This is becoming a tiresome habit RS.

Experience!

:lol:

redstar2000

5th September 2003, 01:04

Do you think that right after we win the revolution classes will just somehow disappear, Redstar?

Obviously not. That is, to be precise, with the immediate abolition of corporate property and the confiscation of great fortunes, the bourgeoisie will technically no longer exist...but their class attitudes will remain.

I suspect the most protracted and difficult struggle in post-revolutionary society will be against the petty-bourgeoisie...particularly in agriculture. We're not talking about peasants here; we're talking about "modern Kulaks" who could cause considerable difficulties for the proletariat, both material and ideological.

As long as there are classes, a state is necessary.

What assumptions are you hiding under that "innocent" five-letter word?

Examine them carefully; decide what you really want!

The working class will not be manipulated by the government because they will be the leading class, they will have ownership of the means of production and therefore complete influence over a revolutionary government.

But that did not happen. Whatever you might possibly mean by the phrase "complete influence over a revolutionary government", the working class in Russia, China, Yugoslavia, Vietnam, Cuba, etc. did not have it.

In fact they had as little to say about the important decisions in society as we do in capitalist society...as close to zero as makes no difference.

On what grounds can you assert that "next time" things will be any different? The Leninists here (mostly) agree that workers are "sheep" that need to be "herded". What they propose in fact is a different kind of wage-slavery...in which the government (and their party) will be the bosses.

How do "sheep" go about "influencing shepherds"?

Makes more sense to me than anarchism, eh?

I sense a bit of concern on your part that unless you endorse a "state", the Leninists will call you "an anarchist" (horrors!)

Rest easy. The Leninist formula--"petty-bourgeois anarchist"--comes as easily from their limited political vocabulary as "this program has performed an illegal operation and will shut down" comes from a Windows© operating system.

It doesn't really mean anything significant; most of them couldn't tell the difference between anarchism and rheumatism.

To them, anyone who denies their claim to power is "a petty-bourgeois anarchist".

Poo!

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

Dr. Rosenpenis

5th September 2003, 01:22

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2003, 08:04 PM
As long as there are classes, a state is necessary.

What assumptions are you hiding under that "innocent" five-letter word?

Examine them carefully; decide what you really want!
what???? :huh:

yeah, all Leninist regimes have resulted in oligarchies. :unsure: But it seems to me that ultimately a government will be necessary if we are to aquire class dominance, no? Otherwise we will lack organization and power. Through what means will the working class wield their power, Redstar, if there is no government?

Dr. Rosenpenis

5th September 2003, 01:23

by the way, RAF, I'm still waiting for a response to my post in between my post to Redstar and his reply to it.

redstar2000

5th September 2003, 02:39

Your main point about Leninism resulting in wage slavery has already been disproven in my previous post, you must not have caught that part.

You not only did not disprove anything but you did not even mention wage-slavery in your previous post.

The Leninist version of "socialism" does not abolish wage-slavery; it merely makes the state the owner--in practice--of the means of production. (I'm ignoring the formal or legal definition of "ownership" here, as we know how little formalities or legalities amount to when it comes to power.).

When you, as a worker, are compelled to work for wages, find someone who will give you part of their wages, or die--you are a wage-slave, period.

And now, with heavy reluctance, we must turn to the "sheep-herder"...

I suppose again you were not clear as to the fact we are talking about socialism not communism.

Quite the contrary, I was well aware of the fact that you were talking about your "new", "improved" and "revolutionary" version of wage-slavery.

I was proposing an alternative...though I didn't expect anything resembling serious consideration of that alternative from you.

You did not disappoint me.

Where does the 5% number come from? I calculated it myself based on past economic models and Okun's law.

Woo hoo! Okun's law!! Bringing out the heavy artillery!!!

Ok, folks, don't be intimidated by that kind of silliness. That "law" is a statistical relationship between economic growth in a capitalist country and official unemployment figures and shows a modest correlation between the two...over the last 40 years or so. It just puts a number on something that is obvious: when capitalist economies grow, unemployment declines.

Bourgeois economists get sexually excited when one of their formulas actually holds up for more than a few years...hence "law".

But it is as I thought: the sheep-herder doesn't really understand what "GDP" is, what it includes and excludes, what degree of confidence can reasonably be placed in official statistics...

and so he pulled a number out of his ass.

Just try and operate a socialist or even communist society under conditions that capitalism still controls the international market and therefore value and see what happens. Your pretty little "society" would not last a month in reality.

Are you saying here that even your version of "socialism" is "impossible in one country"? Are you starting to embrace (brace yourself!) Trotskyism?

Probably not, eh? But your deification of the international marketplace is an interesting strand of thought for one who purports to be a "communist".

I see absolutely no reason why an economically advanced communist society cannot flourish, regardless of the economic systems in other countries.

But I also expect proletarian revolution in a number if not most advanced capitalist societies to occur within a few years of each other at most...so the difficulties that you anticipate (whatever they might be) will not be significant.

Good god you are an absolute windbag. All bullshit and no substance, typical anarchist drivel;

How will you provide the necessary funds in a socialist environment to pay for free public transportation?

How will you pay for free utilities in a socialist environment?

How will you pay for free food services? How will production be gauged? How will distribution be gauged and carried out? How will you counter over-supply? What procedures will you use to assess these problems and how the fuck will you pay for the solutions while maintaining an economy that won't fucking collapse in a week?....Wow simple fucking questions you dodged in your "fine" post of bullshit.

This is a sheep-herder who thinks that if you yell at the sheep loud enough, then they'll obey him.

Meanwhile, note that his questions can all be summarized: "how will you pay for it?"

It is as relevant as a feudal lord asking a 15th century merchant: "but how will you create and maintain loyalty?"

Personal, sworn loyalty was part of the "social glue" that held feudal society together. Capitalist society has no need of it, therefore it has disappeared.

The concept of "payment" is crucial in capitalist society. Communist society has no need for it...it will disappear into the history books.

Resources will be allocated according to need in communist society...something quite literally "unthinkable" to both Leninists and reformists.

Shortages!! What the hell is wrong with you? You think for one minute that the masses are going to put up with "shortages" and rationing in this fucking millennium! this is not 1920!

I know I'm yielding to the temptation of "vulgar" Marxism here...but doesn't this question sort of hint at a fairly comfortable position in present-day class society for our sheep-herder?

Under capitalism, for many millions of people, shortages are a way of life. Class society does ration...if you don't have the money, you don't get any.

We will make sure that everyone gets a reasonably equal share of the goodies...by rationing. I think the "masses" will not only "put up with that" but will demand it.

And what is to be done in those "trial and error" years without a means to stabalise and grow the economy?

The economy will grow in some respects and shrink in others. It will become more stable in some ways and less in others.

The sub-text of your statement is: without you in charge, the "sheep" will hopelessly fuck up everything.

We'll see.

RS is the perfect textbook example of absurd utopian idealism. In other words, useless BULLSHIT.

That's Leninspeak for "disrespectful of authority".

Listening to windbags like this fool here will only serve one thing; Redstar2000's enormous ego.

More Leninspeak--means the same thing.

Keep plodding away at your little fantasy world mate.

Count on it!

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

Vinny Rafarino

5th September 2003, 02:40

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2003, 10:17 PM
RAF, I have another question for you: You're a follower of Stalinism and the Leninist ideology used in the formation of the USSR, then will you please explain what went wrong. If Leninism is so great, then why did it fail miserably? Weren't the people oppressed? Were the leaders corrupt? I thought you said that corruption wouldn't happen since the working class would have ownership of the means of production and thus would have a strong influence over the government? If the working class had so much power, then why did the Soviet Union expand abroad into Eastern Europe, was the proletariat really interested in aquiring satelite states? Were they so interested in olympic competions? Were they so interested in going to space? All of these things show how opportunistic, imperialistic, and beurocratic the soviet union became. But why, comarde, why? If what you say is true then none of this should've happened, no? Is your ideology flawed perhaps? :unsure:
A] There is no such thing as "stalinism" . Comrade Stalin preacticed Marxism/Leninism.

B] What went wrong in the USSR? I just posted on this in aniother thread, as well as several times in the past. After the death of Stalin (after he made the USSR a world power) Khruschev's reinstatement of bougeois capitalins policies crumbled the USSR. It had nothing to do with Marxism or Leninism. Look at the statistics of the USSR pre 1953 and after 1953 to the present. It's truly shocking how anyone could blame the fall of the USSR on anyone besides Khruschev and his successors in this "information" age.
Show me proof that Lenin and Stalin "oppressed" anyone. Show facts VC. Show me proof that Lenin and Stalin were "corrupt". It's amazing you could even think this when the truth is just a mouse-click away.

I said it the people have ultimate responsibility to keep the government in check. However in this situation, due to western and pseudo-Soviet propaganda, the people thought capitalism was a good idea. They wanted Mc Donalds, Coca-cola, etc. Khruschev's administration had them convinced that Mc Donalds could never set foot in the USSR under communism. What a bunch of horse-shit. Stalin would have been the first person open a MC Donalds in the USSR if the company was a non-profit venture. Especially if they invented Mc Baby sandwiches. Get a grip people! Communism is not about living in fucking caves while the masses all bow before your splendor! Communism is about embracing new technolgies, developing a new means to produce these technologies and providing them to EVERYONE without bias. This in itself will ELIMINATE the communist's worst enemy. Class distictions. I am shocked at least once daily on this forum by such insane views of communism and history if the USSR (this is not aimed at you VC) from those that consider themselves to be "leftists".

Khruschev did not allow the Soviet people to have the stupid luxuries that can easily be provided for in a socialist state. He purposely held them back to turn the tide of public favour in the Soviet youth towards revisionism. Now he gets to have a huge mansion, a nice mercedes, etc. without looking hypocritical. Now he can receive huge kickbacks from western franchises and corporations that are the first to tap this new breed of greedy youths in the USSR. He and his successors effectively wiped away every last sentiment of socialism in the USSR for their own personal profit.

C] once capitalism was re-established, the means of production were once again placed into the hands of private ownership, effectively taking the power away from the working class, add western propaganda to the mix to keep the proletariat at bay long enough to drain them of all power and you have the re-establishment of another oppressive capitalist goverment. I must say, from a political standpoint, khruschev and his successors played a brilliant game of massive political programming. Holding my graduate degrees in political science I am truly awed by what they did. Brilliant (but self-serving) politics.

D] Aquiring satellinte states was the first step in internationalising socialism and had nothing to do with the Societ proletariat. (thus killing that whole idea that Stalin did not beliee in global socialism)

E] Olympic games and going to space? this has nothing to do with proletarian politics. They in no way at all reflect any sort of "opportunistic", "imperialistic" or bureaucratic ideologies. I agree thogh VC, after 1953, the USSR bacame a bureaucratic capitalist mess. That howver had NOTHING to do with socialism in the USSR under Leninism.

As you can see, my ideology is not flawed. I am speaking of future revolutions where the masses are much more "in tune" with political policies and maneuvreings, not the conditions that existed in the minds of the workers in 1953.

redstar2000

5th September 2003, 03:15

Through what means will the working class wield their power, Redstar, if there is no government?

The absence of a "strong centralized state" does not mean that there will be no public bodies that will perform the useful functions that we now associate with "government".

In the earliest days of the Russian revolution, there were "soviets"--congresses of deputies elected by workers, soldiers, and peasants--as well as "factory committees"--elected directly from the shop floors. There were even federations of such groups.

Lenin and the Bolsheviks--both Stalin and Trotsky in agreement--put a stop to this "ultra-democratic" "infantile leftism" in the period 1918-1921. The civil war was a "good excuse" but I think they would have done it anyway. The Bolsheviks really believed in their own "mystique"...that only they could run things and the workers were a bunch of dumb sheep that had to be herded for their own good.

It seems to me most likely--at the present time--that something like the soviets and the factory committees will be the public authorities in early communist society.

But how things will evolve from there is, I believe, impossible to predict.

I hope you will note, at least in passing, the sheep-herder's "explanation" for the collapse of the USSR...the "devil" Khrushchev dunnit!

The same Khrushchev who was, of course, a close and valued associate of one J.V. Stalin, "practitioner" of "Marxism"-Leninism.

The "devil" theory of history was discarded by most bourgeois historians in the first half of the 20th century...at least the reputable ones. Leninists cling to it out of desperation...the humiliation of having to admit that the whole Leninist paradigm was flawed from the beginning is "too much to bear".

Life can be so disappointing.

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

Vinny Rafarino

5th September 2003, 03:17

My nemisis strikes while the iron is hot!

You not only did not disprove anything but you did not even mention wage-slavery in your previous post.

The Leninist version of "socialism" does not abolish wage-slavery; it merely makes the state the owner--in practice--of the means of production. (I'm ignoring the formal or legal definition of "ownership" here, as we know how little formalities or legalities amount to when it comes to power.).

When you, as a worker, are compelled to work for wages, find someone who will give you part of their wages, or die--you are a wage-slave, period.

Wage-slavery, nice rhetorical remark there RS. You propose to abolish modern economy in one fated "swoop" yet you cannot describe how this can be accomplished. Again, you need to get back to the present RS. The future is filled with dreams and theories, but we can only accomplish these dreams and theories by using a model that will actually work.

You always forget that I to want to abolish the concept of wages, I simply have an economic and political plan that will make these goals achievable. I will not settle for "this is what I want to happen" without those theories being supported with a workable model to rationally get to them.

Woo hoo! Okun's law!! Bringing out the heavy artillery!!!

Ok, folks, don't be intimidated by that kind of silliness. That "law" is a statistical relationship between economic growth in a capitalist country and official unemployment figures and shows a modest correlation between the two...over the last 40 years or so. It just puts a number on something that is obvious: when capitalist economies grow, unemployment declines.

Bourgeois economists get sexually excited when one of their formulas actually holds up for more than a few years...hence "law".

But it is as I thought: the sheep-herder doesn't really understand what "GDP" is, what it includes and excludes, what degree of confidence can reasonably be placed in official statistics...

and so he pulled a number out of his ass.

Bullshit. Quit being an ass because you never bothered to study actual working economics. Ypu actually posted that I don't understand what GDP is...Asshole. Here's how GDP works in a capitalist society, a socialist societ that resides within an capitalist world market and a socialist society under gloabal socialist conditions, you know what, I'll just give you the my entire post from the State capitalist thread (one you conveniently stayed away from;

RAF-"When a socialist nation exists under conditions where capitalism still is a factor in the global market, you cannot simply supply the workers with the entire amount of the suplus value gained from commodity and domestic good production. If this were the case, any socialist nation would experience a low .5-1% annual growth rate on the natiinam GDP. What socialist market value economics DOES provide is a 20-30% of increase in the surplus value going right back to the proletariat with an additional 60-70% of the curplus value being re-invested back into the economy. This is necessary to pay for the socialised programmes (healthcare, housing, food) that make up a socialised political environment.

Once capitalism is no longer a factor in global economics, the entire portion of surplus value can be directed right back to the proletariat as conventional GDP calculations ceases to be a relevant guage on how the economic growth of a nation is determined.

I capitalist economics, the GDP is calculated by the total market value of all final goods and services produced in a country in a given year, equal to total consumer, investment and government spending, plus the value of exports, minus the value of imports and the total value of over-supply that cannot be re-used the following fiscal year.

Under socialist economics existing in global conditions where capitalism is still present, the GDP is calculated by the total market value of all final goods and services produced in a country in a given year equal to the total value of government and consumer spending added to the total value of exported commodites and the total value of national suplus value invested back into the national economyMINUS the total value of imported goods, the total value of suplus value invested into another nation's economy and the total value of over-supply of goods that are not usable to following fiscal year.

Under global socialist economics, the economy would be guaged by the market value of labour added to the output created by automation, the total value of commodities exported for trade, the total value of government and consumer spending MINUS the total value of commodities exported and the total value of over-supply that is not usable in the following fiscal year.

As you can clearly see, from an economic standpoint the differences in platforms are enormous. Socialist enonomics in global socialist conditions is the final step into the transition into Marxist economics, making surplus value in general irrelevant as under marxist economic conditions, the monetary unit is abolished, completely dissoving concept of GDP based on surplus value, exported and imported goods, government and consumer spending, and investment.

To simply attempt to "jump" directly into Marxist economics will in chaos as the GPD will plummet at an alarming rate since the conditions to provide a reasonable model to how products are produced and distributed along with the guage of how much is to be produced without creating extensive over-supply."

You're an asshold to the extreme RS. Let's hear what you know. That should be a short post.

Are you saying here that even your version of "socialism" is "impossible in one country"? Are you starting to embrace (brace yourself!) Trotskyism?

Probably not, eh? But your deification of the international marketplace is an interesting strand of thought for one who purports to be a "communist".

I see absolutely no reason why an economically advanced communist society cannot flourish, regardless of the economic systems in other countries.

But I also expect proletarian revolution in a number if not most advanced capitalist societies to occur within a few years of each other at most...so the difficulties that you anticipate (whatever they might be) will not be significant.

I love how RS leaves off the end of my statement so his words actually mean something Dirt pool Radstar, dirty fucking pool. What did you think you can pull a fast one on me? I'm much smarter than you pops. Here's my "whole" statement;

"Just try and operate a socialist or even communist society under conditions that capitalism still controls the international market and therefore value and see what happens. Your pretty little "society" would not last a month in reality.

Good grief. Do you know what the word "your" means? I was talking directly to you. Nice try asshole. I just lost all respect for you with that little game.

I see absolutely no reason why an economically advanced communist society cannot flourish, regardless of the economic systems in other countries.

But I also expect proletarian revolution in a number if not most advanced capitalist societies to occur within a few years of each other at most...so the difficulties that you anticipate (whatever they might be) will not be significant.

You can't SEE it bacause you don't know fuck all about economics. You make me laugh. I won't play these silly games with you any longer. You're full of shit, I proved it and because of that you even attepted to quote-chop me. What a prick you are. I'm done with you.

redstar2000

5th September 2003, 13:47

You propose to abolish modern economy in one fated "swoop" yet you cannot describe how this can be accomplished.

Not exactly; I propose to "abolish" modern bourgeois economy over a very brief period of time, a few years at most.

How? By substituting communist economic production and distribution for capitalist economic production and distribution.

Will this result in over-production of some things and under-production of other things? Of course it will. Will it be a "mess"? Quite likely.

Can people learn from experience how to make it work? Absolutely!

You always forget that I too want to abolish the concept of wages, I simply have an economic and political plan that will make these goals achievable.

No you don't. All your "plan" does is create a slight variant of capitalism...all the basic features of a market economy are still present, most especially including a corrupt political elite that appropriates a portion of the surplus for its own luxurious consumption.

All versions of "socialism" that retain the market, wage-slavery, etc. are almost certain to devolve back into monopoly capitalism. Call it "Redstar's law", if you like.

What you really promise is that you will be so "dedicated" as to refrain from using your political monopoly to grab a disproportionate share of the goodies.

Well, you may be...but it's a lead pipe cinch that your co-rulers won't be.

That's the lesson of history!

You can't SEE it because you don't know fuck all about economics.

It is true that my knowledge of bourgeois economics is not that of one trained in the "profession". Judging by the incoherent muddle that you posted in the "state capitalist" thread, you're in the same boat! (You didn't even bother to distinguish between real GDP and nominal GDP.)

Be that as it may, your suggestion that a communist economy would only grow at a very small rate and might even shrink is irrelevant. "Grow or die!" is a law of capitalism...not communism.

Economic "growth" is just one of the factors that communist economists will take into consideration...and not necessarily the most important one, either.

One of the core values of bourgeois ideology is that the more "stuff" you have, the better life "is"...or, "the guy who dies with the most toys wins."

You are just as intoxicated with that vision as Bill Gates; you think that unless there is rapid economic growth (more stuff), "socialism" is a waste of time and we should all "start saving to buy a Porsche".

In a communist society, production of luxury automobiles will be discontinued--a decrease in GDP. Horrors!

Horrible indeed, if you are a bourgeois. Communists have different priorities.

What a prick you are.

The sheep-herder and the reformist agree!

Do I get some kind of prize for creating unity on the "left"? :D

:redstar2000:

PS: For a discussion of GDP from the capitalist point-of-view, try this...

http://www.econedlink.org/lessons/index.cf...fm?lesson=EM170 (http://www.econedlink.org/lessons/index.cfm?lesson=EM170)
___________________________

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

crazy comie

5th September 2003, 15:26

All versions of "socialism" that retain the market, wage-slavery, etc. are almost certain to devolve back into monopoly capitalism.
Economic "growth" is just one of the factors that communist economists will take into consideration...and not necessarily the most important one, either.
can't say i disagre

Vinny Rafarino

5th September 2003, 19:39

RS,

Nice dodge of the hack job you did to my quote in a miserable and dispicable attempt to assert some sort of megalomaniacle power over me.

As far as the rest of your useless post went,

No one bought into your bullshit on that one asshole. Your "RAF's version of socialist economics is purely bourgeois economics" is not only absurd but is simply insane. Social economics is hardly my version of bourgeois economics. Appearently you don't read much. I already told you I was done with you on this thread, so piss off.

redstar2000

5th September 2003, 23:24

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 5 2003, 02:39 PM
RS,

Nice dodge of the hack job you did to my quote in a miserable and despicable attempt to assert some sort of megalomaniacal power over me.

As far as the rest of your useless post went,

No one bought into your bullshit on that one asshole. Your "RAF's version of socialist economics is purely bourgeois economics" is not only absurd but is simply insane. Social economics is hardly my version of bourgeois economics. Apparently you don't read much. I already told you I was done with you on this thread, so piss off.
Now that's what I call a devastating reply...when I've also had too much to drink. :D

Bullshit! Asshole! Piss off!

Pub rhetoric from a pub Leninist.

There's a good lesson here, though. Whenever you stand up to "revolutionary" bullies, you'll find out how little substance there is behind their "intimidating" bluster.

They talk "tough"...but regard critical comment from a Marxist viewpoint "like the devil fears holy water". :D

Personally, I wonder of Comrade RAF has a picture of *whisper* T-R-O-T-S-K-Y in his closet? :D

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

Vinny Rafarino

5th September 2003, 23:34

Not only do I have a picture of the Trot in my closet, I have created a mini-shrine in his honour. I burn incense and wank off to photos of the 1917 revolution while screaming "down with Stalin and his evel horde of henchman!" nightly. Sometimes even twice a day, depending on how "red" I feel.

Then I calculate how many years you have left before old age makes your "golded years" seem like an afterschool programme called "why grandpa thinks I'm his buddy who got killed in WWII".

You cannot phase me with your pathetic insults RS. You're a hack and you will be so until you're last days. Not too long to waith considering your "mature" statis now.

P.S.

Your views are about as Marxist as Ludwig von Mises' were.

Oh and once again, congtatulations on AGAIN dodging the issue of your hack job on my quote.

Hack.

Dr. Rosenpenis

5th September 2003, 23:43

Now, Redstar, if we are to place the power directly in the hands of the working class, would it not be more efective towards equality if it involves a central government, as opposed to having only local "commitees" and "soviets" as you suggest? It is obviously more difficult to have the workers' participation if we are talking about a single central governing body, but even you have said so yourself that modern technology such as the internet may be used in the future to realize a direct democracy. Would this not help to unify the whole proletariat, allowing for a more effective and speedy suppression of the capitalists' power and organs of oppression? I'm sorry if it seems that I'm picking on you more than on RAF, I am being equaly critical of both of your ideologies.

redstar2000

6th September 2003, 03:19

I'm sorry if it seems that I'm picking on you more than on RAF...

Nonsense. You are not "picking on me", you're asking questions. There's not a damn thing wrong with that. I wish more people would do it.

Now, Redstar, if we are to place the power directly in the hands of the working class, would it not be more effective towards equality if it involves a central government, as opposed to having only local "committees" and "soviets" as you suggest?

It might be "more effective" but there's a rather nasty trade-off involved. A "strong centralized state", even one that is "controlled" by democratic "representatives" of the working class, has a marked tendency to institutionalize itself...which is just another way of saying that the people at the top of that hierarchy grow to like it up there.

After a while, it seems "natural" to them that they should make decisions "for the good" of the working class. They even start creating a "mystique" about themselves as "crucial" to the victory of the revolution, as "indispensable" men, etc. Next thing you know, the printing presses are rolling...with photographs of these pompous twits (suitable for framing).

Let's turn the question around and ask it another way: are there certain functions that it would be useful to have centralized?

Sure there are. It would be useful to have a central data collection agency for all production and consumption data...so that people everywhere could know at any moment how the entire society was doing--and make informed decisions about their local and regional affairs.

Other practical functions could be usefully centralized in the same way...every municipality or commune does not need its own air controller, its own inter-city passenger train, its own weather-forecasting supercomputer, etc.

Data collection and distribution--and even interpretation--might well be centralized temporarily or permanently. What is crucial to prevent is the creation of a "political center of gravity"...a place where a small number of people make sweeping decisions affecting the entire society and then enforce (or attempt to enforce) those decisions by the threat or use of military force.

That's a state...in the worst sense of the word--an emerging organ of class rule.

Once you see that, the ballgame is over.

You're a hack and you will be so until your last days. Not too long to wait considering your "mature" status now.

I certainly do feel the icy breath of mortality and it is stronger with every passing year.

Which is kind of a shame, because the coming decades should be very interesting ones.

However, those are the breaks. Until I collapse over the keyboard, I'll be reminding folks that you think of workers as "sheep" and want very much to be a shepherd...not to mention your notorious fondness for mutton.

Have a nice day.

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

Dr. Rosenpenis

6th September 2003, 04:58

Might it not be too idealistic to expect such a radical change to occur right after we win the revolution? Try to imagine such a scenario, comarde. How will the workers organize themselves into these commitees and soviets? Won't the revolution itself have leaders? How will these commitees be established? Classes still exist, no? Explain how things will fall into place without the help of a revolutionary vanguard?

redstar2000

6th September 2003, 12:15

How will the workers organize themselves into these committees and soviets?

How do people engage in spontaneous activities now?

How do you and your friends organize a picnic, help someone move to a new apartment, or have a demonstration?

Yes, there are sometimes, even often, temporary "leaders"...people who "take the initiative" and say "why don't we do this?".

If someone develops a pattern of coming up with good suggestions on a regular basis, we begin to look to that person "out of habit".

I don't think there's anything "wrong" with that...until it becomes institutionalized. Until, somehow, that person with the good suggestions is now giving orders. And he's got some goons to back him up. :o

That's a disaster whether it happens in one small workplace or the totality of revolutionary society.

What we communists should be promoting now is an "ethic" that is totally hostile to "order-givers", no matter who they are.

I expect the revolutionary process will involve many of what the Spanish anarcho-syndicalists referred to as "influential militants"...people who come up with "good ideas" for how to organize communist society.

You can call them "leaders" if you like...the point is that their "power" is only the power of persuasion. It is unacceptable that they should give an order...no matter how "good" that order might "be".

Explain how things will fall into place without the help of a revolutionary vanguard?

Very raggedly, at first. People will probably have many conflicting ideas about the best way to set up a communist society...and they will struggle with each other over these ideas.

That is to be expected. After all, when you look at bourgeois revolutions, the new ruling class was far from unified on how to set things up and run them...they struggled with each other over the best way to do things.

Why should it be any different for the working class?

The Leninists, of course, already have a "model" ready to "put into place" (impose by violence against the working class). It will look more or less like the USSR under Stalin.

And it will "work"...there's no question about that. Central economic planning backed by military power is a "workable" system.

But unless you plan to be part of the ruling elite, it's a pile of shit to live in...no significant improvement on what we have now.

Not only is it not worth a revolution; it's not even worth a vote.

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

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

Dr. Rosenpenis

6th September 2003, 14:10

Here's Elijahcraig's reply to this thread. He PM ed to me recently. I thought it was alright to post it in here, eh?

I wanted to comment to you on the “dictatorship of the proletariat” thread, since I cannot post. In reference to RS’s “abolishment of bourgeois economy”.

I think any talk of “abolishing” economic laws is totally non-Marxist, anti-Marxist even. Marxism is scientific analysis of economic laws, just like the laws of nature; they act independently of man’s will. The only possible thing to do is to “wield” them in the interests of the society, instead of the Capitalist. So, RS is not comprehending a fundamental part of Marxism, as usual. RAF has asked him many many times to explain himself; he hides behind the word “sheep-herder” in reference to Leninists. He cannot explain himself. Why? Because he does not understand the economic laws, dictated by science, independent of the will of man. He says it will be a “communist society”! That is UTOPIANISM. Pure and simple comrade.

Read Josef Stalin’s “Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR”. Even if you hate Stalin, it is still a great summary of the economic laws of Marxism.

redstar2000

7th September 2003, 01:27

Most amusing.

He overlooks the fact that there are no "general laws of economics"; there are specific economic laws that apply to each particular version of class society.

For example, capitalism has abolished the economic laws of both feudalism and chattel slavery.

Communist revolution, in abolishing class society altogether, abolishes its "economic laws" as well.

Stalin's book, which I read back in 1965, discusses the problems of his version of class society. As I recall, he pointed out that class contradictions grow stronger with the passing of time in his "socialism"--a perceptive remark: that's what happens in all forms of class society.

But Stalin's remarks are, of course, irrelevant to classless society.

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

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

Dr. Rosenpenis

7th September 2003, 17:56

Elijahcraigs reply to Redstar:

He overlooks the fact that there are no "general laws of economics"; there are specific economic laws that apply to each particular version of class society.

I did not overlook that, I’m not sure where you get that I overlooked anything. You are talking of “abolishing” economic laws; you cannot do so. They are laws independent of the will of man. Purely. You can learn about them, study them, etc., and perfect them in the best interests of society; but at no time can you “abolish” them.

For example, capitalism has abolished the economic laws of both feudalism and chattel slavery.

Yes, but man did not abolish these things, the evolution of economy did.

Communist revolution, in abolishing class society altogether, abolishes its "economic laws" as well.

You are probably the most utopian person I’ve ever met on a message board.

How do you mean to “abolish” all class society RS? You are a complete Christian if you think one day it will all come together in your favor, destroying all classes at once. It cannot be this way. You cannot “abolish” the laws of capitalism and install communist economy, that is not possible. Man can do nothing but use the economic laws of the time for the best interests of the society.

Stalin's book, which I read back in 1965, discusses the problems of his version of class society. As I recall, he pointed out that class contradictions grow stronger with the passing of time in his "socialism"--a perceptive remark: that's what happens in all forms of class society.

This has nothing to do with economic law, please let’s have some talk of Stalin’s analysis of laws of economics.

But Stalin's remarks are, of course, irrelevant to classless society.

Why do you say this? Stalin makes a spot on analysis of Marxist analysis of economic law. Are you dodging the point I made or are you just a moron?

redstar2000

8th September 2003, 00:52

You are talking of "abolishing" economic laws; you cannot do so. They are laws independent of the will of man. Purely. You can learn about them, study them, etc., and perfect them in the best interests of society; but at no time can you "abolish" them.

Yes, but man did not abolish these things, the evolution of [the] economy did.

If you want to say it this way: the rise of capitalism in North America made the southern economy based on slave labor no longer viable; instead of saying it this way: the United States congress in 1865 adopted an amendment to the constitution prohibiting chattel slavery -- that's "ok" with me.

You are word-splitting; the fact of the matter is that the economic laws of the slave economy were abolished along with slavery itself.

"Economic laws" do not exist "out there" like the laws of physics or chemistry...they don't have an "objective existence".

They are derivatives of the particular kind of society that exists, its level of technological development, its means of production, its relations of production (classes), etc.

Since, with Marx, I do not expect proletarian revolution until "the productive possibilities of capitalism are exhausted", I am thereby also saying that the establishment of classless society has, as one of its consequences, the abolition of the economic laws of capitalism.

You are probably the most utopian person I’ve ever met on a message board.

How do you mean to "abolish" all class society RS? You are a complete Christian if you think one day it will all come together in your favor, destroying all classes at once. It cannot be this way. You cannot "abolish" the laws of capitalism and install communist economy, that is not possible. Man can do nothing but use the economic laws of the time for the best interests of the society.

Alas, poor Leninist. Whenever faced with the stark vision of classless society, they recoil like a vampire seeing a cross. "It's impossible" they scream and run back to their coffins.

That's because they intend to use the laws of capitalism for their own benefit. As masters of a gargantuan state-apparatus that owns everyone's labor-power, they look forward with considerable anticipation to being a new ruling class.

Far from abolishing wage-slavery, they intend to make it even more rigorous than it already is...as the historical experience of both Russia and China demonstrate.

All for "our own good", of course. And "someday", they promise, they will "step down" and "introduce communism". And the lamb will lie down with the lion, and the skies will darken with flying pigs, etc., etc., etc.

Why do you say this? Stalin makes a spot on analysis of Marxist analysis of economic law. Are you dodging the point I made or are you just a moron?

I already said that Stalin's analysis of "economic laws" were relevant only to his version of class society...and consequently of no interest at all to communists.

Who's the "moron"?

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

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

Dr. Rosenpenis

8th September 2003, 02:05

Elijah's reply to RS:

If you want to say it this way: the rise of capitalism in North America made the southern economy based on slave labor no longer viable; instead of saying it this way: the United States congress in 1865 adopted an amendment to the constitution prohibiting chattel slavery -- that's "ok" with me.

Slavery is not an economic law RS, it was the way in which humans used the laws of economy.

You are word-splitting; the fact of the matter is that the economic laws of the slave economy were abolished along with slavery itself.

Slave economy was never “abolished”, the time was reached in which the economy could no longer exist in this form, it had to change. This had nothing to do with men “abolishing” economic laws, but changing from one form of commodity production to another in order to reach larger profits. If you think the Ruling class somehow abolished slavery for “humanism”, you are a pathetic individual.

"Economic laws" do not exist "out there" like the laws of physics or chemistry...they don't have an "objective existence".

Economic laws exist externally from mankind, as Stalin says, independent of the “will of man”.

Since, with Marx, I do not expect proletarian revolution until "the productive possibilities of capitalism are exhausted", I am thereby also saying that the establishment of classless society has, as one of its consequences, the abolition of the economic laws of capitalism.

I think you are what Stalin would call a communist which would “disgrace themselves”. You are a utopianist, pure and simple.

Alas, poor Leninist. Whenever faced with the stark vision of classless society, they recoil like a vampire seeing a cross. "It's impossible" they scream and run back to their coffins.

Watch: He’s going to go off into a tangent, which has nothing to do with the scientific analysis of economic law which I am trying to have:

That's because they intend to use the laws of capitalism for their own benefit. As masters of a gargantuan state-apparatus that owns everyone's labor-power, they look forward with considerable anticipation to being a new ruling class.

See^^^

Far from abolishing wage-slavery, they intend to make it even more rigorous than it already is...as the historical experience of both Russia and China demonstrate.

See^^^

All for "our own good", of course. And "someday", they promise, they will "step down" and "introduce communism". And the lamb will lie down with the lion, and the skies will darken with flying pigs, etc., etc., etc.

See^^^

I already said that Stalin's analysis of "economic laws" were relevant only to his version of class society...and consequently of no interest at all to communists.

Wow, you are such a little dodger. It’s pathetic really. So now “socialism” is completely obsolete? Learning from the successes of the great USSR is obsolete? Of no interest to Communists? “Communists” such as yourself maybe? Otherwise known as Utopian Socialists?

Who's the "moron"?

The Monsier who continues to dodge all talk of Stalin’s economic basics presented in the work I have put forth.

redstar2000

8th September 2003, 03:40

Economic laws exist externally from mankind, as Stalin says, independent of the "will of man".

Well, if HE said it, then it "must" be true. :D

Seriously, does this nonsense "require" a response?

The whole fucking point of proletarian revolution is that humans become conscious agents of history instead of being victims of "incomprehensible forces".

Stalin, as the ruler of a class society could no more think outside of the laws of a class society than you can.

Except he had a good excuse; you don't!

I think you are what Stalin would call a communist which would "disgrace themselves". You are a utopianist, pure and simple.

Why should I give a rat's ass about Stalin's hypothetical opinion of me?

As to your opinion, of course I am a "utopianist"--I refuse to submit to your "new", "improved", "revolutionary" brand of wage-slavery.

And I cordially invite you to take your "economic laws" which are supposed to "compel" me to "follow your leadership" and stick them where the sun never shines!

Watch: He’s going to go off into a tangent, which has nothing to do with the scientific analysis of economic law which I am trying to have:

Scientific? You?

I very much doubt that you would understand the scientific method if you tripped over it and fell on your face. Certainly your failure to distinguish between the economic laws of bourgeois class society--including its Leninist variants--and the characteristics of communism strongly suggest that you and science are total strangers.

So now "socialism" is completely obsolete?

Yes!

Learning from the successes of the great USSR is obsolete?

YES!

Of no interest to Communists?

YES! YES! YES! At last, you begin to "get it".

Communists are interested in communism. What you have to offer is something entirely different and, in fact, no real improvement on what we already have.

...who continues to dodge all talk of Stalin’s economic basics presented in the work I have put forth.

Yes, the instruction booklets written by dinosaurs are of no interest to me.

I am a mammal.

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

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

RevolucioN NoW

8th September 2003, 05:01

From Elieghcraig (cant spell it sorry)

Economic laws exist externally from mankind, as Stalin says, independent of the "will of man".

Well, if HE said it, then it "must" be true. [/QUOTE]

Stalin was correct about this RS, if you disagree, you are going against fundamental Marxist belief.

The whole fucking point of proletarian revolution is that humans become conscious agents of history instead of being victims of "incomprehensible forces".

You are correct. They become “conscious agents” and learn and master economic law; they then use these laws in the best interests of society. It is a simple concept.

Stalin, as the ruler of a class society could no more think outside of the laws of a class society than you can.

He ruled a socialist society. This is a class society, the bourgeois are mercilessly suppressed. In your fantasy world, the bourgeois magically disappear after the revolution.

I think you are what Stalin would call a communist which would "disgrace themselves". You are a utopianist, pure and simple.

Why should I give a rat's ass about Stalin's hypothetical opinion of me?[/QUOTE]

I did not say you did care, or would care; I think you should, I consider him a great Marxist.

As to your opinion, of course I am a "utopianist"--I refuse to submit to your "new", "improved", "revolutionary" brand of wage-slavery.

OOOO, the resistance continues. Moron. Lay off the use of bold and quotes RS, it gets old quick.

And I cordially invite you to take your "economic laws" which are supposed to "compel" me to "follow your leadership" and stick them where the sun never shines!

Wow, now that’s a great debate on economic law. Pathetic a 60+ year old man can’t even debate simple concepts and economic principles. Pathetic.

Watch: He’s going to go off into a tangent, which has nothing to do with the scientific analysis of economic law which I am trying to have:

Scientific? You?

I very much doubt that you would understand the scientific method if you tripped over it and fell on your face. Certainly your failure to distinguish between the economic laws of bourgeois class society--including its Leninist variants--and the characteristics of communism strongly suggest that you and science are total strangers.[/QUOTE]

You have done NOTHING to debate economic law RS. You have merely called me a “sheep-herder” and gone along your merry Fantasy way. I have stated basic Marxist theory, that economic law is external of man’s will. You have done nothing but scribbled into the world of utopianists and idealists anarchists.

So now "socialism" is completely obsolete?

Yes![/QUOTE]

Good god, you are one sick little monkey. The Opus of the Pathetic Little Monkey continues:

Learning from the successes of the great USSR is obsolete?

YES![/QUOTE]

Of no interest to Communists?

YES! YES! YES! At last, you begin to "get it". [/QUOTE]

Communists are interested in communism. [/QUOTE]

Master of the Obvious, the Sick Pathetic Little Monkey states. Of course Communists are interested in Communism you moron, REAL communists are also interested in REALISTIC ways of getting there.

...who continues to dodge all talk of Stalin’s economic basics presented in the work I have put forth.

Yes, the instruction booklets written by dinosaurs are of no interest to me.[/QUOTE]

Maybe we should toss Marx and Engels out as well. It goes in line with the rest of your nonsensical Utopian scribbles.

I am a mammal.

Correct. You are most certainly a mammal. A Sick Pathetic Little Monkey.

--------------------
"It is not a thing that we are Maoist or Stalinist, Leninist. We say that there is no such animal as a Maoist --- that there is just Marxist, Leninist, and that Stalin was truly a Marxist-Leninist. He always praised Lenin and carried out the ideas of Lenin. It's just a matter of people and history in its totality and telling the true story of what took place.

The reason that they fear Joseph Stalin is because of the distorted facts that they have gained through the Western press. "

-David Hilliard, of the Black Panther Party