Totalitarian fetishists

[RGacky3]

I think that people on the board who are obvious totalitarian fetishists, that really have no interest in real socialism, workers control or economic democracy, or actual emancipation of the working class, but instead are just really into totalitarian regiems and any slightly anti-american dictator, (or even just dictators), just be treated as fascists and banned, frankly they are basically the same thought.

When you have people who come and are blatent appologists for North Korea and Pol Pot, who are obviously interested in totalitarianism and red hat dictatorships, and who have an authoritarian fetish (like the guy who likes to talk about sending leftists to "re-education camps"), these people are obviously not communists because they care about worker emancipation or a democratic economy, its just an authoritarian fetish.

As far as I'm concerned they are as bad as fascists, and should probably face a ban.

(BTW, I'm not talking about the many leninist who defend the bolshevisk as attempting to institute actaul soviet socialism, or even certain maoists who feel the same way, even though I think they are both wrong, those ones probably are actually interested in workers democracy and real socialism).

[cogar66]

Is there anyone besides RevLeft By Birth?

[manic expression]

I think that people on the board who are obvious liberal fetishists, that really have no interest in real socialism, workers control or economic democracy, or actual emancipation of the working class, but instead are just really into dissing working-class regiems and any slightly anti-american figure, (or even just revolutionaries), just be treated as fascists and banned, frankly they are basically the same thought.

............

Much better.

[RGacky3]

liberal fetishists? If by liberal fetishist you mean someone that actaully believes in democracy and emancipation then yeah, I'm that, and so was Karl Marx.

BTW, what does liberal actually mean? Seriously

[RGacky3]

Also I'm pretty sure advocating freedom of speach and democracy is compatible with socialism, infact its a pre-requisite for it.

Advocating sending political dissidents to slave labor camps or shooting them, advocating dictatorships and a top down economic system is not really compatible with socialism at all, putting it in the name or having a red flag does'nt change that.

[manic expression]

Liberals think they believe in democracy and emancipation, but because they buy the political narrative of the ruling class, they end up preaching against the cause of the workers.

To make a long story short, your politics aren't Marx's.

[Geiseric]

Nobody here is a fucking liberal. Everybody wants to get rid of the fucking ruling class! Stalinists have nowhere to talk, the entire popular front deal with socialists allying with FUCKING CAPITALISTS then the leaders selling out was a common trend in Stalinist parties. Stalinism has no democracy (workers democracy), and Stalin and comintern sold out revolutionaries TO ACTUAL FUCKING LIBERALS so they could buy an alliance with FUCKING CAPITALISTS and defeat the Nazis, who untill threatened Stalin directly, were treated as potential fucking ally. in conclusion, defend this shit all you want, but I don't get why Stalinists don't get mad at any of these things when they read it somewhere. This isn't coming from a solid trotskyist, even though I respect and see him as commie jesus (jk), it's coming from somebody who sees the workers movement threatened by an ideology that should have been thrown in the dustbowls of history.

[Sasha]

i have an totalitarian fetish but i leave it in the bedroom...

[Ocean Seal]

Guys can we stop making threads about how we all hate each other and about how members of different groups should be banned/restricted. Remember that if you do have any interest in workers regimes sectarianism is your true enemy. I like differing viewpoints, it helps me learn.

[DarkPast]

Guys can we stop making threads about how we all hate each other and about how members of different groups should be banned/restricted. Remember that if you do have any interest in workers regimes sectarianism is your true enemy. I like differing viewpoints, it helps me learn.

I agree that asking for other groups to be banned is silly, but you have to realise that some of the groups here are mutually totally incompatiable, despite the fact that they're all leftist - or at least claim to be (*cough* DPRK fans *cough*).

[Book O'Dead]

[...]

When you have people who come and are blatent appologists for North Korea and Pol Pot, who are obviously interested in totalitarianism and red hat dictatorships, and who have an authoritarian fetish (like the guy who likes to talk about sending leftists to "re-education camps"), these people are obviously not communists because they care about worker emancipation or a democratic economy, its just an authoritarian fetish.

[...]

Would make any difference if they advocated that absolutely EVERYBODY should be sent to a re-education camp?

I'll volunteer to go in the first group, provided it's a nice camp with a pool and air-conditioned class rooms, preferably built somewhere near the beach. Say, like Costa Del Sol or the French Riviera.

Re-education is such a delight when one is surrounded by beautiful sun-tanned bodies! Yum!

[Demogorgon]

You have to love that it took Manic Expression a mere seven minutes to turn up with his "if you're not a totalitarian, you're a liberal" routine (with totalitarian being the preferable option). I wonder if he notices the implication of saying that things like freedom of speech, competitive elections and so forth belong to the bourgeoisie whereas workers have dictatorship, repression and so forth as their political structure of choice. That is an argument advanced often enough, but rarely by those who defend Communism or Socialism.

To speak more broadly, I believe that those with a fetish for dictators are divided into those who desperately want to believe that there are some "good guys" in power as it makes the world seem a lot more hopeful and those who embrace so called leftist politics because they simply want to identify with those seen as bad in order to be edgy or as a form of rebellion or whatnot.

[gendoikari]

lol. I've been an Social Democrat-> anarcho socialist-> Trotskyist and every day that goes by I see the horrors of capitalism and I got to say, I would not be opposed to a leninist regime if they could sort some of the totalitarian issues out and root out corruption. It's at least better than this shit.

But I agree on the apologists. Anyone who supports stalin, or the kims, have some serious issues.

[#FF0000]

I think we ban too many people as it is.

[manic expression]

You have to love that it took Manic Expression a mere seven minutes to turn up with his "if you're not a totalitarian, you're a liberal" routine
I aim to please. ;)


I wonder if he notices the implication of saying that things like freedom of speech, competitive elections and so forth belong to the bourgeoisie whereas workers have dictatorship, repression and so forth as their political structure of choice. That is an argument advanced often enough, but rarely by those who defend Communism or Socialism.I wonder if you noticed that this idiotic thread is nothing but an entirely false premise, and I was pointing that out in my first post.

But of course instead of noticing that and what I was saying, you wave around bourgeois catch-phrases as if they meant something. We're to believe that the USSR was a "dictatorship" in want of those "competitive elections" and "free speech" we see all over the sivilized world. Simply put, that's false. I'll deal with these fallacies in turn.

"Freedom of speech" is something you're using in the abstract. Let's take it down from that position and put it in reality. In capitalism, speech is tied to your bank account. Capitalists have a voice because they can pay for it, and everyone else has nothing. Thus, we get all sorts of backwards, reactionary views thrown at us day and night...we get propaganda promoting murder, conquest, oppression and worse while workers get no say. That's capitalist "free speech". In socialism, racists aren't allowed to spread hatred on the airwaves, bigots aren't allowed to degrade our LGBT sisters and brothers however they like. That's called standing up for human dignity. Now, anti-socialists can speak out for sure, and if you want examples of this, Cuba has plenty living, breathing dissidents who walk the streets freely. In fact, the USSR treated dissidents (after 1956) far better than Russia does today. So yes, there is tolerance...but there is also the fact that reactionary views are shown to be reactionary and not broadcasted (hence the word "tolerance"). That's working-class free speech.

"Competitive elections". I suppose "competitive", in your mind, is measured by the amount of money spent on campaign balloons. Well, in socialism it doesn't work like that (http://www.quaylargo.com/Productions/McCelvey.html). And for good reason. Working-class democracy doesn't have showy "competitions" between two candidates who basically agree on everything; instead it has neighborhood-based discussion about real issues between fellow workers. That's working-class competitive elections.

"Dictatorship" is present, in one form or another, in any state. But that aside, socialist countries have not been "dictatorships". Just because Lenin or Stalin's position came from the vanguard party which, due to the course of the Civil War and the development of the USSR, was left as the only party in support of the Revolution, doesn't mean they were dictators. Your formula of office-holder with power = dictator is quite reminiscent of liberal argument.

"Repression"...well, we shouldn't let capitalists destroy working-class gains. Do you agree? If so, then you support repression.


To speak more broadly, I believe that those with a fetish for dictators are divided into those who desperately want to believe that there are some "good guys" in power as it makes the world seem a lot more hopeful and those who embrace so called leftist politics because they simply want to identify with those seen as bad in order to be edgy or as a form of rebellion or whatnot.It's not about good guys, it's about systems that are good for humanity. In order to defend them, we need to reject bourgeois propaganda and talk about what matters.

[Octavian]

If you honestly believe that the average person is able or willing to form themselves into communes and workers democracies you are fooling yourself.

[Blake's Baby]

If you don't, then it's difficult to see what you are doing here. Either you believe that the working class has the ability to solve the problems that face it and the rest of humanity, or you don't. If you don't, the best answer is asking capitalism and the state for a nice government - a benevolent dictatorship. If you do, the best answer is advocating the ending of the system that currently exists - and if you know a better way than through the revolutionary action of the working class, I'd be interested to hear what it is.

[GPDP]

Totalitarians vs. Liberals - it's the battle of the greatest Revleft buzzwords!

[AnonymousOne]

Totalitarians vs. Liberals - it's the battle of the greatest Revleft buzzwords!

You forgot Reactionary and Petit-Bourgeoise.

[ComradeMan]

If you honestly believe that the average person is able or willing to form themselves into communes and workers democracies you are fooling yourself.

:crying:

Well there goes leftism out of the window....

[Octavian]

If you don't, then it's difficult to see what you are doing here. Either you believe that the working class has the ability to solve the problems that face it and the rest of humanity, or you don't. If you don't, the best answer is asking capitalism and the state for a nice government - a benevolent dictatorship. If you do, the best answer is advocating the ending of the system that currently exists - and if you know a better way than through the revolutionary action of the working class, I'd be interested to hear what it is.

I only see authoritarian socialism/communism as better suited when capitalism exists because the more you loosen up the more you conform to capitalism. As it stands the working class could care less about their situation, if they did we wouldn't have capitalism. The average person wants to go to school, party, then get an education, meet the love of their life, settle down and have kids. If that's the path that's guaranteed along with comfortable living standards then they wont care about overthrowing capitalism. It's only when things deteriorate to the point where they can't live comfortably that we will see change but till then were all just arguing atop the ivory tower.

[Viet Minh]

At the risk of sounding like a fash, if North Korea is so great go live there, srsly. Me personally I like my socialism to be a bit more, well social.

[Revolution starts with U]

I only see authoritarian socialism/communism as better suited when capitalism exists because the more you loosen up the more you conform to capitalism. As it stands the working class could care less about their situation, if they did we wouldn't have capitalism. The average person wants to go to school, party, then get an education, meet the love of their life, settle down and have kids. If that's the path that's guaranteed along with comfortable living standards then they wont care about overthrowing capitalism. It's only when things deteriorate to the point where they can't live comfortably that we will see change but till then were all just arguing atop the ivory tower.

So... you want to liberate them for them, because they don't want to liberate themselves?

That's a good strategy President Bush... see how it works out. :thumbup1:

[Octavian]

So... you want to liberate them for them, because they don't want to liberate themselves?

That's a good strategy President Bush... see how it works out. :thumbup1:
No, I want to liberate them because they don't realize they can liberate themselves. Marx had a name for it, class consciousness.

[Susurrus]

No, I want to liberate them because they don't realize they can liberate themselves. Marx had a name for it, class consciousness.

Or rather don't have the means to liberate themselves.

[Revolution starts with U]

You'll never force people into class consciousness

[Tim Finnegan]

I only see authoritarian socialism/communism as better suited when capitalism exists because the more you loosen up the more you conform to capitalism. As it stands the working class could care less about their situation, if they did we wouldn't have capitalism. The average person wants to go to school, party, then get an education, meet the love of their life, settle down and have kids. If that's the path that's guaranteed along with comfortable living standards then they wont care about overthrowing capitalism. It's only when things deteriorate to the point where they can't live comfortably that we will see change but till then were all just arguing atop the ivory tower.
That Lasallism, not Marxism. The Marxist understanding of social revolution is of a period of heightened class struggle which can no longer be contained within the existing political infrastructure, not just of escalating hunger riots getting- or do you really believe that the proto-revolutionary Parisians of 1968 were living in dire poverty as compared to the non-revolutionary Parisians of 1908?

[Octavian]

Or rather don't have the means to liberate themselves.
And what is the means?


The Marxist understanding of social revolution is of a period of heightened class struggle which can no longer be contained within the existing political infrastructure, not just of escalating hunger riots getting-
That's exactly what I'm saying. But the masses aren't going to initiate class struggle unless they are given a reason. Humans are reactive not proactive.

[Tim Finnegan]

That's exactly what I'm saying. But the masses aren't going to initiate class struggle unless they are given a reason. Humans are reactive not proactive.
"Initiate class struggle"? Class struggle is an intrinsic feature of capitalism, not something that you can turn on and off. It manifests at the most minute level, as genuinely present in a worker skiving on the job or sneaking an extra five minutes on his lunch as in a general strike. The question is not whether class struggle is in process, but how heightened it is be, and the relatively strength of the working class within it.

[Octavian]

"Initiate class struggle"? Class struggle is an intrinsic feature of capitalism, not something that you can turn on and off. It manifests at the most minute level, as genuinely present in a worker skiving on the job or sneaking an extra five minutes on his lunch as in a general strike. The question is not whether class struggle is in process, but how heightened it is be, and the relatively strength of the working class within it.

Class struggle wasn't the appropriate term then, class warfare better conveys what I'm trying to say. The height was what I was talking about. Until we reach the height of class struggle and the illusion of the middle class disappears we and our ideologies are completely irrelevant. Authoritarianism is necessary when capitalism exists, though more so when you have a capitalist super like the united states. The important thing about authoritarianism that the USSR and china made the mistake of was to make sure that before the socialist authoritarian dies to decentralize the power completely.

[Tim Finnegan]

Class struggle wasn't the appropriate term then, class warfare better conveys what I'm trying to say. The height was what I was talking about. Until we reach the height of class struggle and the illusion of the middle class disappears we and our ideologies are completely irrelevant. Authoritarianism is necessary when capitalism exists, though more so when you have a capitalist super like the united states.
I'm really not following. Our ideologies are irrelevant (true) therefore we must exercise the power that we don't have in an authoritarian manner? Could you elaborate on this? :confused:
Nor do I see how this constitutes a defence of your earlier suggestion that the working class needed us to liberate them on their behalf. All you're offering is commentary on the current, enfeeble left, not on the process by which the working class gains a revolutionary conciousness.


The important thing about authoritarianism that the USSR and china made the mistake of was to make sure that before the socialist authoritarian dies to decentralize the power completely.I think the bit where they retained and expanded capitalist social relations may be rather more significant than merely forgetting to restructure party-state.


Why are you billed as a "Left Communist", exactly? :confused:

[Octavian]

I'm really not following. Our ideologies are irrelevant (true) therefore we must exercise the power that we don't have in an authoritarian manner? Could you elaborate on this? :confused:
Nor do I see how this constitutes a defence of your earlier suggestion that the working class needed us to liberate them on their behalf. All you're offering is commentary on the current, enfeeble left, not on the process by which the working class gains a revolutionary conciousness.
I'm saying that while capitalism still exists in the world, more so when you have capitalist super powers like the USA authoritarianism is the most efficient and resistant way to run a socialist society. The process by which they working class liberates themselves is practically unknown and unpredictable, Though I would say that the most likely time the working class will rise is when capitalism becomes so unsustainable that living conditions deteriorate and the illusion of the middle class disappears.


I think the bit where they retained and expanded capitalist social relations may be rather more significant than merely forgetting to restructure party-state.


Why are you billed as a "Left Communist", exactly? :confused:
Those social relations were integral to running and developing those countries though. I will agree the expansion was unnecessary but was due to the need for an intellectual base and of course in poor countries like China and the former USSR the only intellectuals were the former bourgeoisie.

I'm a left communist because that's the tendency which my views coincide with the most. How ever I am not as secretarian, zealous or elitist as some left communists are. I like to draw my ideas from all revolutionary thought.

[RGacky3]

If you want to talk about Bourgious freedom as being freedom for sale, sure, I totally agree, its not actual freedom, the same with freedom of speach, when it translates into money its not actual freedom.

But if your response is to call anyone that wants freedom of speach liberals, and thus wanting THAT kind of system your missing the point, and if your answer to that, is just to take away freedom of speach totally, and if your answer to that is Stalin and North Korea, then whats the point?

The authoritarian types love to call everyone else liberals, and then say that bourgeois freedom and democracy are abstract and really don't apply to working people, which has truth under capitalism, but then you go on to support systems where they take away even MORE freedom and democracy from the workers.

[RGacky3]

BTW, I'm not talking about people like Maniac expression who, although I totally disagree with him, make arguments that the USSR did have freedom of speach and democracy.

I'm talking about people who don't even bother and instead acnowledge that the regeims they support don't have it and support that.

[Tim Finnegan]

I'm saying that while capitalism still exists in the world, more so when you have capitalist super powers like the USA authoritarianism is the most efficient and resistant way to run a socialist society.
But socialism is the radically democratic self-organisation of the working class, a libertarian and emancipatory proposition by its very nature. That can't be "authoritarian" without compromising itself fundamentally, and thereby rendering it no more "socialist" than any existing capitalist state.


The process by which they working class liberates themselves is practically unknown and unpredictable, Though I would say that the most likely time the working class will rise is when capitalism becomes so unsustainable that living conditions deteriorate and the illusion of the middle class disappears.To what extent does the historical record attest to this?


Those social relations were integral to running and developing those countries though. I will agree the expansion was unnecessary but was due to the need for an intellectual base and of course in poor countries like China and the former USSR the only intellectuals were the former bourgeoisie.Well, yes, that's why Socialism In One Country is utter bunk. That we recognise it as non-socialist doesn't mean that we can then go and defend it as a legitimate working class program, when it so painfully obvious is not and never has been.


I'm a left communist because that's the tendency which my views coincide with the most. How ever I am not as secretarian, zealous or elitist as some left communists are. I like to draw my ideas from all revolutionary thought.And yet you seem to reject the principles of radical proletarian self-organisation and the rejection of state capitalism which more or less define Left Communism, at least as a genetic position distinguished from Bolshevism and Social Democracy. So that strikes me as rather confusing.

[Octavian]

But socialism is the radically democratic self-organisation of the working class, a libertarian and emancipatory proposition by its very nature. That can't be "authoritarian" without compromising itself fundamentally, and thereby rendering it no more "socialist" than any existing capitalist state.
Socialism requires that workers own the means of production. Democracy is independent of that.



To what extent does the historical record attest to this?
Every major empire/state has reached a point where it ether over extended or over consumed at which point it imploded(Like the roman empire) or fractured(Like the British empire). It's only so long before the empire of capitalism collapses.



Well, yes, that's why Socialism In One Country is utter bunk. That we recognise it as non-socialist doesn't mean that we can then go and defend it as a legitimate working class program, when it so painfully obvious is not and never has been.
I'm saying that authoritarianism could help develop socialist states that would help the world revolution.



And yet you seem to reject the principles of radical proletarian self-organisation and the rejection of state capitalism which more or less define Left Communism, at least as a genetic position distinguished from Bolshevism and Social Democracy. So that strikes me as rather confusing.
I don't reject them I think that the development of socialist states before a world wide rebellion would be beneficial. I also see authoritarianism to be the preferred method considering the dangerous and aggressiveness of the USA.

[agnixie]

Socialism requires that workers own the means of production. Democracy is independent of that.
The workers, not a bureaucratic neo-bourgeoisie. Which is what you advocate.

[RGacky3]

Socialism requires that workers own the means of production. Democracy is independent of that.


No its not, thats the definition of democratic, the workers having control over their own workplace is by definition democracy.


I'm saying that authoritarianism could help develop socialist states that would help the world revolution.


What it could do is destroy every aspect of socialism within the "socialist state" and thats what it neccessarily does.


I also see authoritarianism to be the preferred method considering the dangerous and aggressiveness of the USA.

What does foreign policy have to do with authoritarianism? Authoritarianism happens because your afraid of your own population.

[DinodudeEpic]

Why are people here loving authoritarianism so much? And, hating on free speech?

Note that there is more to being a Revolutionary Leftist then simply espousing socialism. There is the need to bring liberty and civil rights.

Call me a 'liberal' all you want, (Although, all liberals are center-leftists and aren't that.) but I prefer liberal democracy with it's capitalism to 'socialist' dictatorships with their planned economies. In fact, if liberal means someone who wants civil liberties and freedoms for society, then I'm a liberal. If liberal means that same someone, but a capitalist, then I'm not a liberal. But, they are still better then totalitarianism.

[Demogorgon]

"Freedom of speech" is something you're using in the abstract.

No I am not. Freedom of speech is the ability to express a view without the fear of retaliation. It is also of course of considerably greater value if you have the resources to make your voice loudest, we'll come to that is a moment. But clearly important is the lack of retaliation for speaking your view as well as not being censored. If I say I wish the end of capitalism or the british State or that David Cameron is an appalling man and a terrible prime Minister even by the very low standards British Prime Ministers set, am I punished for doing so? No. Moreover when I express these views in letters to the mainstream press I am usually published and experience neither censorship nor retaliation from authorities. I do of course sometimes get retaliation from certain other parties and have had some...interesting things posted to me, but I think I can live with that. The point is that I am able to express myself publicly against the Government and economic system we live in. As someone who takes considerable advantage of that I know it exists and am happy for it. I know as well that those in power would happily claw back some of these rights, but for the time being they cannot. In many of the countries you admire, that simply does not exist. Criticism of the individuals heading the Government invites retribution, questioning the political or economic system (including from a leftist standpoint) is not a good idea for those who want a tolerable life. That is a very real difference.


Let's take it down from that position and put it in reality. In capitalism, speech is tied to your bank account. Capitalists have a voice because they can pay for it, and everyone else has nothing.Capitalists get more of a voice certainly, but that doesn't mean others get nothing. Obviously it depends on where you are and in America it is worse than most other places, but anti-capitalist views are not silenced. Here they are expressed openly and regularly-though the establishment naturally tries to belittle them. The capitalist system gives those in power a huge head start by affording them by them dominating the resources. You aren't aiming to level the playing field. You are seeking to kill of opposition to your views.


Thus, we get all sorts of backwards, reactionary views thrown at us day and night...we get propaganda promoting murder, conquest, oppression and worse while workers get no say. That's capitalist "free speech". In socialism, racists aren't allowed to spread hatred on the airwaves, bigots aren't allowed to degrade our LGBT sisters and brothers however they like. That's called standing up for human dignity. Now, anti-socialists can speak out for sure, and if you want examples of this, Cuba has plenty living, breathing dissidents who walk the streets freely. In fact, the USSR treated dissidents (after 1956) far better than Russia does today. So yes, there is tolerance...but there is also the fact that reactionary views are shown to be reactionary and not broadcasted (hence the word "tolerance"). That's working-class free speech.
No, here's the thing. Claiming to "tolerate" dissidents is pretty cheap when the best they can hope for is to be shoved into dead end jobs for the rest of their working lives. Not to mention harassed in various ways. The most persistent ones generally ended up in prison as well, which kind of undermines the notion of tolerance.

Moreover, and here is the kicker, "dissident" has a very broad definition indeed. It includes any leftists who are dissatisfied with the way the system is performing.


"Competitive elections". I suppose "competitive", in your mind, is measured by the amount of money spent on campaign balloons. Well, in socialism it doesn't work like that (http://www.quaylargo.com/Productions/McCelvey.html). And for good reason. Working-class democracy doesn't have showy "competitions" between two candidates who basically agree on everything; instead it has neighborhood-based discussion about real issues between fellow workers. That's working-class competitive elections.Leftists disagree on all sorts of things as the vast number of competing groups show. On Revleft people can't even agree on what colour the sky is, yet you claim that two working class candidates will automatically "agree on just about everything" every single time? Pull the other one. I know your world view is based around the need to believe that there are some genuinely wonderful places on earth and you need to believe that there are genuinely socialist societies in existence today and as such will engage in great levels of double think in order to maintain that illusion, but try being honest to yourself, even if you can't be to others. Do you honestly believe for instance that all of the genuinely socialist working class people in North Korea unanimously agreed to remove the last references to socialism from the constitution a couple of years back?

On top of that, "neighbourhoods discussing issues" doesn't count for much in countries of millions of people. You can't set national policy amongst a few dozen local people. You need a national decision making structure, and you don't even want to talk about that.


"Dictatorship" is present, in one form or another, in any state. But that aside, socialist countries have not been "dictatorships". Just because Lenin or Stalin's position came from the vanguard party which, due to the course of the Civil War and the development of the USSR, was left as the only party in support of the Revolution, doesn't mean they were dictators. Your formula of office-holder with power = dictator is quite reminiscent of liberal argument.
So naturally that must include banning the emergence of any other socialist parties, mustn't it? Or independent trade unions? I always thought that workers being able to organise themselves whas quite important to socialists. Silly me. Moreover I am defining dictators as those who hold power without accountability to those they hold power over. If that is a "liberal" definition, then so be it, but throwing that word around at the expense of an argument doesn't mean much. Of course, you believe that the leaders of "Communist" countries were fully accountable to the people. In that case why didn't the people remove their leaders and replace them with others when these countries were clearly deviating from what even you think is "socialism". China bringing in full scale capitalism for instance.


"Repression"...well, we shouldn't let capitalists destroy working-class gains. Do you agree? If so, then you support repression.No, here is the thing. I believe there can be no gains to the working class if there is no means of making sure the working class is genuinely gaining. So even leaving aside the repression of those who are not keen on the new system in the first place, the repression of other left wing voices saying that the individuals in charge are not doing a good job or that there are better policies to follow is not a good idea.


It's not about good guys, it's about systems that are good for humanity. In order to defend them, we need to reject bourgeois propaganda and talk about what matters.
Which naturally must mean looking at what has been beneficial for humanity. Your admiration for North Korea, to take one example, shows that you aren't doing a very good job of that. Particularly given despite the fact that I made it easier and easier for you, you were unable to name a single issue in all of North Korean history when there was any popular participation in making a policy.

[manic expression]

No I am not. Freedom of speech is the ability to express a view without the fear of retaliation. It is also of course of considerably greater value if you have the resources to make your voice loudest, we'll come to that is a moment. But clearly important is the lack of retaliation for speaking your view as well as not being censored. If I say I wish the end of capitalism or the british State or that David Cameron is an appalling man and a terrible prime Minister even by the very low standards British Prime Ministers set, am I punished for doing so? No. Moreover when I express these views in letters to the mainstream press I am usually published and experience neither censorship nor retaliation from authorities. I do of course sometimes get retaliation from certain other parties and have had some...interesting things posted to me, but I think I can live with that. The point is that I am able to express myself publicly against the Government and economic system we live in. As someone who takes considerable advantage of that I know it exists and am happy for it. I know as well that those in power would happily claw back some of these rights, but for the time being they cannot. In many of the countries you admire, that simply does not exist. Criticism of the individuals heading the Government invites retribution, questioning the political or economic system (including from a leftist standpoint) is not a good idea for those who want a tolerable life. That is a very real difference.
You err so flagrantly because you fail to understand the psyche of the bourgeoisie. David Cameron doesn't give a flying fig what you say about him...precisely because the left (that is to say the political formation of the working classes) is accorded no voice. All speech comes down to what you can pay for, and thus the capitalist class holds complete control over the media while the workers are left with blogs and limited-circulation newspapers. To the capitalist, the muted rumblings of the poor is of no consequence; the capitalist prospers and is troubled not by these faraway whispers of dissatisfaction. He is aloof to such trifles whether at his country club or at his desk.

Now, when the workers do gain a strong voice (in spite of the fact that the media is set up to deny them just that), and when our capitalist can no longer remain so aloof to popular discontent, then that is quite another matter, for all of a sudden the strength of the capitalist state comes down like a ton of bricks upon its opponents: ostracizing, arresting, abusing, murdering anyone who opposes the ruling order. A cursory glance at history will prove as much, the Black Panthers being a vintage example.

This is capitalist "freedom". The freedom to complain, so long as it reaches not one ruling class ear. If it does, then that "freedom" disappears faster than a dry martini at a ruling class party.

In working-class societies, there is no such attitude, for the government takes an active and immediate interest in the discourse of its fellow workers. You are right in that this is a very real difference, but it is a difference that marks the progressive society from the reactionary one. It only makes sense: a working-class state has neither the ability nor the desire to ignore which ideas go on within the masses.


Capitalists get more of a voice certainly, but that doesn't mean others get nothing. Obviously it depends on where you are and in America it is worse than most other places, but anti-capitalist views are not silenced. Here they are expressed openly and regularly-though the establishment naturally tries to belittle them. The capitalist system gives those in power a huge head start by affording them by them dominating the resources. You aren't aiming to level the playing field. You are seeking to kill of opposition to your views.Really? When was the last time you heard a fairly-presented revolutionary working-class voice on the BBC? BBC 2? BBC 3? Sky News?

But even if that were the case, the capitalist media has innovated practically an entire artform of putting opposing views on display, misrepresenting them, lying about them and then mocking them. It is part of the duplicity of capitalist propaganda: the illusion of capitalist "freedom" would be a sight more difficult to sustain if it was otherwise.

Working-class societies, on the other hand, have no need for this circus of illusory debate with illusory ideas. Honest, straightforward discussion between fellow workers is the order of the day in socialist countries, and so you don't see opposing views being put up and twisted and mocked...because it's dishonest. Instead, anti-socialists are usually allowed to peddle their garbage, but they aren't given free reigns to the media in order to do it.

You say "You aren't aiming to level the playing field. You are seeking to kill of opposition to your views." Yet no revolutionary wants a "level playing field"...revolutionaries want to overturn capitalism and therefore the capitalist method of propaganda. It's simply a matter of taking the microphone from the paid shills of the bourgeoisie and giving to the masses. Those shills can screech all they want, but no one's going to help them do it.


No, here's the thing. Claiming to "tolerate" dissidents is pretty cheap when the best they can hope for is to be shoved into dead end jobs for the rest of their working lives. Not to mention harassed in various ways. The most persistent ones generally ended up in prison as well, which kind of undermines the notion of tolerance.Tolerance is about letting people air their views. Putting them in the back of the line when it comes to getting a new TV doesn't contradict tolerance.

Further, what you falsely call "harassment" is actually just pro-socialist workers using the avenues of free speech. When the reactionary anti-socialist Ladies in White protest in Cuba, they're met with crowds of progressive pro-socialist workers. That's free speech. That's debate. That's working-class society.


Moreover, and here is the kicker, "dissident" has a very broad definition indeed. It includes any leftists who are dissatisfied with the way the system is performing.Sure, I agree with that. That's why a "dissident" who disagrees with the electoral system is treated differently than a "dissident" who collaborates with foreign enemies of socialism.


Leftists disagree on all sorts of things as the vast number of competing groups show. On Revleft people can't even agree on what colour the sky is, yet you claim that two working class candidates will automatically "agree on just about everything" every single time? Pull the other one. I know your world view is based around the need to believe that there are some genuinely wonderful places on earth and you need to believe that there are genuinely socialist societies in existence today and as such will engage in great levels of double think in order to maintain that illusion, but try being honest to yourself, even if you can't be to others. Do you honestly believe for instance that all of the genuinely socialist working class people in North Korea unanimously agreed to remove the last references to socialism from the constitution a couple of years back?I don't think two working-class candidates will always agree, but I do think the bourgeois system of two candidates is anti-democratic and built for the sole purpose of suppressing working-class voices. That's why I look to the democracy of Cuba, wherein candidates are nominated by open, public neighborhood committees that are nothing but local, honest deliberation between fellow workers. The candidate is then subjected to a yes-or-no vote to confirm the nomination of the working-class council.

By the way, there isn't only one legal party in the DPRK.


On top of that, "neighbourhoods discussing issues" doesn't count for much in countries of millions of people. You can't set national policy amongst a few dozen local people. You need a national decision making structure, and you don't even want to talk about that.It definitely counts a great deal, no matter what the size of the country. The point of neighborhood-based democracy is that each district chooses a delegate to the municipal assembly, which in turn chooses a delegate to the national assembly. Each delegate keeps their pre-election jobs. Local issues get solved through local bodies, while national issues are dealt with through national ones.


So naturally that must include banning the emergence of any other socialist parties, mustn't it? Or independent trade unions? I always thought that workers being able to organise themselves whas quite important to socialists. Silly me. Moreover I am defining dictators as those who hold power without accountability to those they hold power over. If that is a "liberal" definition, then so be it, but throwing that word around at the expense of an argument doesn't mean much. Of course, you believe that the leaders of "Communist" countries were fully accountable to the people. In that case why didn't the people remove their leaders and replace them with others when these countries were clearly deviating from what even you think is "socialism". China bringing in full scale capitalism for instance.Not at all. "Other" parties are permitted, even if they're not socialist, but they shouldn't expect to get much support because of it (ie the Varela Project).

Unions have to be done on the basis of full inclusion, I think. "Independent" trade unions can tip-toe toward exclusion and reaction. The anti-worker crimes of Solidarity, a reactionary outfit that should be remembered with nothing but scorn and disdain, have proven as much in spades.

In the USSR, I find that accountability was inconsistent. Khrushchev did have accountability when he was put out of office, while Gorbachev didn't because he subverted the organization of the party to destroy socialism. However, the leaders of the USSR were accountable to the various processes that put them into office in the first place. I haven't studied the political organs of the PRC so much so I have to pass on that example.


No, here is the thing. I believe there can be no gains to the working class if there is no means of making sure the working class is genuinely gaining. So even leaving aside the repression of those who are not keen on the new system in the first place, the repression of other left wing voices saying that the individuals in charge are not doing a good job or that there are better policies to follow is not a good idea.I agree, and we should allow those voices their due time. Also, I think that aside from the errors of the late 30's and post-WWII period, socialist countries have mostly done that.


Which naturally must mean looking at what has been beneficial for humanity. Your admiration for North Korea, to take one example, shows that you aren't doing a very good job of that. Particularly given despite the fact that I made it easier and easier for you, you were unable to name a single issue in all of North Korean history when there was any popular participation in making a policy.The DPRK has done a fine job of promoting human dignity in the worst of circumstances. They're fighting a war against the monster of imperialism...and you want to slander them. You blame the effects of the siege on the people of the DPRK instead of their enemies. Typical.

Anyway, one issue of popular participation is the defense of the country against imperialist aggression. The people are involved in it from the get-go. If you don't believe me, watch "Crossing the Line". It shows how the DPRK military is based very firmly on the popular struggle to defend Korea.

[Tim Finnegan]

Socialism requires that workers own the means of production. Democracy is independent of that.
How can the workers be meaningfully said to own something which they do not control?


Every major empire/state has reached a point where it ether over extended or over consumed at which point it imploded(Like the roman empire) or fractured(Like the British empire). It's only so long before the empire of capitalism collapses.What does that have to do with your comments on living standards?


I'm saying that authoritarianism could help develop socialist states that would help the world revolution.And I'm saying that authoritarianism is intrinsically counter-revolutionary, for the simple reason that, following Marx, proletarian revolution is by definition the democratic self-organisation of the working class. Revolution without proletarian democracy is a mere party coup.


I don't reject them I think that the development of socialist states before a world wide rebellion would be beneficial. I also see authoritarianism to be the preferred method considering the dangerous and aggressiveness of the USA.How can socialism exist without world revolution? Worker-controlled capitalism, perhaps, but you've already thrown that out in favour of state-management, so what do you actually have left but state capitalism?

[Octavian]

How can the workers be meaningfully said to own something which they do not control?

You can still delegate control to workers there just wouldn't be as much democracy within the state as if they workers controlled everything.



What does that have to do with your comments on living standards?
It has to do with living standards because all three empires the roman empire, the British empire, and the capitalist empire have done the same thing. Instead of developing and producing within themselves they use their superior technology to enslave and produce more wealth for a lot cheaper outside of their original domain. This leads to the need for more and more wealth until eventually their system breaks down. The current system that we have is one where the middle class has to be pacified by the cheap goods so that bourgeoisie can live on top with out their power being threatened. But if and when their system breaks down and they can no longer afford to keep this up, because you know that their living conditions will be the last to go they will cut the middle class. At that point we have nothing to loose but our chains.



And I'm saying that authoritarianism is intrinsically counter-revolutionary, for the simple reason that, following Marx, proletarian revolution is by definition the democratic self-organisation of the working class. Revolution without proletarian democracy is a mere party coup.
Theory doesn't always match up with reality. Sometimes the workers are unable to organize themselves, that's where authoritarianism could help a organize a large group of people across a large area.



How can socialism exist without world revolution? Worker-controlled capitalism, perhaps, but you've already thrown that out in favour of state-management, so what do you actually have left but state capitalism?
It wouldn't be state capitalism if you delegated control to workers.

[Pretty Flaco]

To make a long story short, your politics aren't Marx's.

Neither are yours.

[NGNM85]

I think we ban too many people as it is.

Bolded and underlined.