A few questions [Archive]

honest john's firing squad

5th May 2012, 02:37

Yeah, once a bourgie always a bourgie. Take that Engels you bastard!

Good job Marx never said that the more far-sighted sections of the bourgeoisie would come over to the workers seeing that that's where humanity's future lies. That would be craziness.
I just think it would be very difficult for that to happen, because many would probably be heavily resented by the vast majority of people. I can't imagine a CEO going into work after his overthrow without everyone exhibiting profound levels of contempt for him, especially given that his class would have launched one of the most brutal counter-revolutions the world had ever seen.

Yeah, it's not like the revolution will engulf the whole world. What we need is tiny revolutions in different places that allow the bourgeoisie space and time to organise the counter-revolution. Because the isolation of Russia and the invasion by the 15 different countries that made up the 'Intervention' in the Civil War didn't have any negative effects or even lessons for us no way.

Maybe the bourgies could flee to the Moon?
I don't advocate the isolation of the revolution or anything; that would be pretty dumb. Sorry if that wasn't readily apparent. I'm just saying it's possible there could be a select few countries that are pretty much unscathed by the revolution (or at least in its early stages, because it won't engulf the whole world immediately), and the bourgeoisie with the means to do so would likely attempt to escape there.

Good call, because socialism is totally not about human liberation, oh no, it's a revenge trip concocted by impotent but power-hungry morons and that's how it's gonna stay.
I don't personally consider revenge useful or desirable in the long-term, but I do recognise that the revolution is going to be carried out by a lot of pissed off, downtrodden people who don't share my views, not the Salvation Army.

I say it isn't high on my priorities list because some leftists have this downright bizarre idea that their welfare and the emancipation of the working class are equally important objectives. I'll worry about the general well-being of those whose class would have launched a brutal counter-revolution against us after the latter.

Blake's Baby

5th May 2012, 13:41

I just think it would be very difficult for that to happen, because many would probably be heavily resented by the vast majority of people. I can't imagine a CEO going into work after his overthrow without everyone exhibiting profound levels of contempt for him, especially given that his class would have launched one of the most brutal counter-revolutions the world had ever seen...

So? So some of the people at wherever they end up working resent them. I can live with that.

...
I don't advocate the isolation of the revolution or anything; that would be pretty dumb. Sorry if that wasn't readily apparent. I'm just saying it's possible there could be a select few countries that are pretty much unscathed by the revolution (or at least in its early stages, because it won't engulf the whole world immediately), and the bourgeoisie with the means to do so would likely attempt to escape there...

I think this is a certainty, but I also think that the process will be over fairly quickly; if it isn't, we're just losing in slow motion and the point about what happens to the bourgeoisie becomnes moot; we know what will happen, they'll manage a capitalist restoration, get their power back, institute a bloody repression and establish a firmer control than we had before. Meanwhile, we'll all be massacred.

...I don't personally consider revenge useful or desirable in the long-term, but I do recognise that the revolution is going to be carried out by a lot of pissed off, downtrodden people who don't share my views, not the Salvation Army.

I say it isn't high on my priorities list because some leftists have this downright bizarre idea that their welfare and the emancipation of the working class are equally important objectives. I'll worry about the general well-being of those whose class would have launched a brutal counter-revolution against us after the latter.

By 'their' I assume you mean the bourgeoisie; but I think you're misunderstanding what I'm getting at. Socialism = general human emancipation. Simple as. The (former) bourgeoisie can't be excluded from that.

honest john's firing squad

5th May 2012, 14:10

So? So some of the people at wherever they end up working resent them. I can live with that.
I don't know too many people who could tolerate working with a sack of shit who shared responsibility for violently putting down their uprising and killing hundreds of thousands of their comrades, as well as royally fucking them over when it came to their wages and working conditions under the capitalist order, do you? I don't think they would last very long if they got work, if they even attempted to assimilate into society at all.

I think this is a certainty, but I also think that the process will be over fairly quickly; if it isn't, we're just losing in slow motion and the point about what happens to the bourgeoisie becomnes moot; we know what will happen, they'll manage a capitalist restoration, get their power back, institute a bloody repression and establish a firmer control than we had before. Meanwhile, we'll all be massacred.
agreed.

By 'their' I assume you mean the bourgeoisie; but I think you're misunderstanding what I'm getting at. Socialism = general human emancipation. Simple as. The (former) bourgeoisie can't be excluded from that.
No joke, I know/have talked to people who actually believe that the utmost care and respect must be commanded for the bourgeoisie as we overthrow them, whilst they launch their professional militaries at us. Hippies, the lot of them. I have no doubt a few of these types from fairy land can be found here on revleft and in all corners the internet. Their shit ideas have disproportionate influence on many on the armchair-left, and these are who my comments were directed at.

Rafiq

5th May 2012, 18:17

I hate this. I hate it so much.

That isn't surprising.

The struggle for the destruction of capitalism is inherently a struggle of human liberation. The destruction of class society means much more than an end to wage-labor.

While I don't doubt for a second that the destruction of Bourgeois society is not limited to the mere destruction of wage-labor, The destruction of capitalism is not inherently a struggle for human liberation. Not at all, actually. The very concept of "Human liberation" is not only subjective, it's ludicrous. The class enemy is just as Human, you know. To claim the "Struggle for Human Liberation" as your own is ridiculous, of what right do you have doing so?

We do not seek to liberate humanity. We seek to crush a selected group of Humans who are a class enemy. It is not about morals, it isn't about Liberating all of humanity. It is about the emancipation of the proletariat.

WanderingCactus

5th May 2012, 18:46

PC LOAD LETTER

5th May 2012, 18:56

Yes, but it is the end of class society. As Blake's Baby mentioned, not all of the bourgeoisie will be totally blind to the future. Your line of reasoning - and your constant raging against morals and humanism - reeks of an unpleasant fetish for violence. I would respond with greater depth if I had time, but I don't, so I will leave you with some words from Marx.

"Communism is the positive supersession of private property as human self-estrangement, and hence the true appropriation of the human essence through and for man; it is the complete restoration of man to himself as a social – i.e., human – being, a restoration which has become conscious and which takes place within the entire wealth of previous periods of development. This communism, as fully developed naturalism, equals humanism, and as fully developed humanism equals naturalism; it is the genuine resolution of the conflict between man and nature, and between man and man, the true resolution of the conflict between existence and being, between objectification and self-affirmation, between freedom and necessity, between individual and species. It is the solution of the riddle of history and knows itself to be the solution." - Marx
Emphasis mine: On the issue of morals, 'accepted' morality is a reflection of the interests of the ruling class

In the condition of the proletariat, those of old society at large are already virtually swamped. The proletarian is without property; his relation to his wife and children has no longer anything in common with the bourgeois family relations; modern industry labour, modern subjection to capital, the same in England as in France, in America as in Germany, has stripped him of every trace of national character. Law, morality, religion, are to him so many bourgeois prejudices, behind which lurk in ambush just as many bourgeois interests.

WanderingCactus

5th May 2012, 18:58

Emphasis mine: On the issue of morals, 'accepted' morality is a reflection of the interests of the ruling class

I am aware. I was specifically referring to Rafiq's particular approach to the topic; sorry if I wasn't clear enough.

Blake's Baby

5th May 2012, 19:51

...
We do not seek to liberate humanity. We seek to crush a selected group of Humans who are a class enemy. It is not about morals, it isn't about Liberating all of humanity. It is about the emancipation of the proletariat.

No, we seek to destroy a social relationship. Not just shooting or locking up some capitalists.

...

No joke, I know/have talked to people who actually believe that the utmost care and respect must be commanded for the bourgeoisie as we overthrow them, whilst they launch their professional militaries at us. Hippies, the lot of them. I have no doubt a few of these types from fairy land can be found here on revleft and in all corners the internet. Their shit ideas have disproportionate influence on many on the armchair-left, and these are who my comments were directed at.

What do you mean by 'utmost care and respect' here? Do you mean, asking nicely if we should die quietly, so as not to disturb them? Or do you mean not shooting them and their friends and families in the back of the head? Or do you mean something in between? If so, what?

Blake's Baby

5th May 2012, 19:53

Oh, double post, sorry.

hatzel

5th May 2012, 22:50

Factual interjection: proletarian identity politics = capitalist Leftistism.

Fuck the Proletariat™ and its sordid cheerleaders.

Le Socialiste

5th May 2012, 23:28

What will happen to the bourgeoisie when the proletarians take power?

The bourgeoisie are made up of those ruling and affluent personalities that dominate the working-class over the course of the latter's labor, extracting a profit from said labor through the utilization of exploitative means. Capitalism is incapable of anything but the suppression of human need and the acquisition of capital. This dictatorship of capital over the means and livelihoods of the laboring classes naturally entails the forcible removal of those groups and individuals comprising the bourgeoisie from their positions. This does not ensure that a new ruling-class will not rise from the wreckage of the bourgeois state, however. It is essential then that the working-class begin the process of its self-emancipation through the formation and establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat (dotp). The suppression of the bourgeoisie as a powerful and influential class must be carried out for the eventual fulfillment of society as a classless and stateless body.

Should they join the revolution or face the consequences?

Some will inevitably try to head off any revolutionary impulses from below by portraying themselves in a populist and/or radical light. It's important that the working-class recognizes these attempts for what they are - otherwise, it settles with the satisfaction that some victory has been attained. This is never the case. The bourgeoisie have proven themselves to be incredibly resilient and adaptable when occasion calls for it.

And also what should be the task of the intellectuals during the revolution?

Are we talking about left-oriented intellectuals here, or intellectuals in the broader sense? The role of the former is to help realize the collective consciousness of the workers from a position of equality (as opposed to superiority), to fight alongside the proletariat when it engages in struggle and to provide an alternative to the existing relations and institutions under capitalism. It is of little use to interpret history from the comfort of one's home; after all, Marx said it best when he argued:

The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it.

honest john's firing squad

6th May 2012, 05:02

What do you mean by 'utmost care and respect' here? Do you mean, asking nicely if we should die quietly, so as not to disturb them? Or do you mean not shooting them and their friends and families in the back of the head? Or do you mean something in between? If so, what? Basically many on the armchair left push this downright bizarre narrative that there will be some sort of a clean slate for the former bourgeoisie after the revolution; that they will be absolved of their crimes to our class, and they won't be brought to justice or otherwise held accountable for their role in suppressing the revolution. I've met people who think that housing the homeless, finding employment for the unemployed and feeding the hungry is as high on our priorities list as doing all this for the former bourgeoisie and making them feel welcome in our society, like we're all going to play happy families or some shit. I don't agree with any of this nonsense at all.

hatzel

6th May 2012, 11:16

Factual interjection the second: railing against humanism whilst appealing to deeply humanist notions like 'the emancipation of the proletariat' = kinda lulzworthy.

Ever so slightly unrelated appeal to authority, namely Phillipe Lacoue-Labarthe:

Nazism is a humanism in that it rests on a determination of humanitas, which is, in its eyes, more powerful, ie, more effective, that any other. The Subject of absolute self-creation, even if it transcends all the determinations of the modern Subject in an immediately natural position (the particularity of race), brings together and concretises these same determinations (as does Stalinism with the subject of absolute self-production) and sets itself up as the Subject, absolutely speaking. The fact that this subject lacks the universality that seems to define the humanitas of humanism in the usual sense does not, however, make Nazism an antihumanism. Quite simply, it fits Nazism into the logic, of which there are many examples, of the realisation and concretisation of "abstractions."Emphasis mine.

Humanism may very well be 'counterrevolutionary,' but that doesn't mean that calling for the emancipation of one specific abstraction, namely the Proletariat, is any less humanist than calling for the emancipation of 'humanity.' (Nor, incidentally, would effectively 'expanding' the humanitas to include non-human entities - as is often the case amongst many in the animal rights and environmentalist movements, i.e. Peter Singer or John Zerzan - be any less humanist). It is, however, arguably more capitalistic, as it appeals to a historically specific abstraction - that constituted by and constitutive of capitalism alone - as if it were eternal and authentic. (This is not to imply that 'humanity' is not similarly historically specific, but it at least gives the impression of permanence, whilst the Proletariat is flagrant in its impermanence, and its complete and utter reliance on the perpetuation of capitalism, as capitalism is reliant on the perpetuation of the Proletariat). As such it remains entirely within a capitalistic paradigm from which it cannot hope to escape.

Rafiq

6th May 2012, 23:47

Yes, but it is the end of class society. As Blake's Baby mentioned, not all of the bourgeoisie will be totally blind to the future. Your line of reasoning - and your constant raging against morals and humanism - reeks of an unpleasant fetish for violence. I would respond with greater depth if I had time, but I don't, so I will leave you with some words from Marx.

No one knows if it is the end of class society, or what it could possibly look like. And what do you mean? The Bourgeoisie exist to retain their own class existence, and nothing otherwise. Should they not submit to the revolution, they are to be liquidated.

A fetish of Violence you say? No, just a recognition of it's necessity. Violence is not something which you can just push to the side. It takes a lot to not be afraid of it, both to use it and to recognize it's potential. A lot of people lack this capability.

"Communism is the positive supersession of private property as human self-estrangement, and hence the true appropriation of the human essence through and for man; it is the complete restoration of man to himself as a social – i.e., human – being, a restoration which has become conscious and which takes place within the entire wealth of previous periods of development. This communism, as fully developed naturalism, equals humanism, and as fully developed humanism equals naturalism; it is the genuine resolution of the conflict between man and nature, and between man and man, the true resolution of the conflict between existence and being, between objectification and self-affirmation, between freedom and necessity, between individual and species. It is the solution of the riddle of history and knows itself to be the solution." - Marx

Was this not the young, Humanist Marx? Young Marx has nothing to do with Old, Materialist, Scientific Marx, you know. That quote is from a segment from one of his works in 1844.

I don't, at all, Identity with Young Marx. If Young Marx = Marxism, I'm not Marxism. My Marxism focuses solely on the Older Marx, the Marx whose head was not tucked in his ass.

Old Marx was no humanist. And he, like me, had a "Violence Fetish", as you put it. He was strictly scientific, and "Cold, Heartless". A full Materialist, that would later give birth to the currents of Marxism that flourished in the early 20th century.

Rafiq

6th May 2012, 23:48

No, we seek to destroy a social relationship. Not just shooting or locking up some capitalists.

Yes, I fully understand this. But capitalists exist to retain their own class existence, and therefore seek to retain this social relationship, which is why the disobedient ones will, indeed have to be "Shot and locked up", as you say (Or just forcefully dealt with, really, with most likely violence, as we agree they would be resistful).

Rafiq

7th May 2012, 00:01

Factual interjection the second: railing against humanism whilst appealing to deeply humanist notions like 'the emancipation of the proletariat' = kinda lulzworthy.

It's been over a year now and the same nonsense people have been using as arguments, still, resides.

The emancipation of the proletariat, or me calling for it, is not a Humanist notion. Nor is it a moral notion. It means that these specific class interests, inherent to the proletariat, devoid of any morals or ideas necessary in order to forfill them (Class struggle on behalf of them predates communism), would be examplified eventually. It means that if we undersand the systemic contradictions of the capitalist sytem, one could say that it is necessary in order to prevent a mass destruction of the social order, which isn't good for the person saying so (Therefore morals are unnecessary).

Or, if were to be a proletarian, it is in your better material interest to support your own emancipation.

This is probably why Marx was so fond of Spartacus: Spartacus wasn't a moralist, he wasn't a dreamer or a bullshitter. He merely represented a collective group of people for filling their own emancipation, perhaps even for filling their own ends, but at the same time using each other in order to do so, as a collective group and force.

They didn't need morals or Ideology to set themselves free. That is the point.

Humanism may very well be 'counterrevolutionary,' but that doesn't mean that calling for the emancipation of one specific abstraction, namely the Proletariat, is any less humanist than calling for the emancipation of 'humanity.'

I'm inclined as to why you think so, I hope, for all of our sakes ,that it isn't the same nonsense (That Proletarian emancipation = Better for all of humanity or humanity in particular).

(Nor, incidentally, would effectively 'expanding' the humanitas to include non-human entities - as is often the case amongst many in the animal rights and environmentalist movements, i.e. Peter Singer or John Zerzan - be any less humanist).

Is this a semantics argument? Are we arguing as to what Humanism is, then?

What is, to you, Humanism?

It is, however, arguably more capitalistic, as it appeals to a historically specific abstraction - that constituted by and constitutive of capitalism alone - as if it were eternal and authentic.

Here, I get what you are getting at.

No, not by any means. All forms of class struggle were inherent to a previous order, and if the development is progressive, it is a mutt of the previous order. For example, the Capitalist class's Freedom cannot be called Feudal because the capitalist class is constituted and constitute of Feudalism alone.

And I don't consider such a development to be the "Freedom of Humanity", or "eternal and authentic". I deem it only relevant to now, to modern times, to the capitalist mode of production, just as the Capitalists did to the Feudal Mode of production.

(This is not to imply that 'humanity' is not similarly historically specific, but it at least gives the impression of permanence, whilst the Proletariat is flagrant in its impermanence, and its complete and utter reliance on the perpetuation of capitalism, as capitalism is reliant on the perpetuation of the Proletariat)

So long as the remnants of the capitalist class exists, so does the proletariat. The act, at least to me, of the proletariat emancipating itself is the destruction of the proletariat itself.

When Spartacus emancipated himself and his slave brethren, he thereby was in the process destroying Slaves, and Slavery to begin with. That is the point. I don't see how it contradicts anything I said.

. As such it remains entirely within a capitalistic paradigm from which it cannot hope to escape.

Again, here I remain a Marxist (Unsurprisingly, I hope for you).

You cannot be devoid or external from the mode of production you reside within. There is only one exit, and that is through the proletarian class, the only class whose interest is to abolish itself. And ironically, it is this exit which capitalism gave birth. All of these mode of productions, carry contradictions which literally carry the seeds of their own destruction, in capitalism's case, the proletarian class.

What you say may have made sense if we are to think capitalism only gives birth to which supports itself, with no systemic flaw. Capitalism itself carries forces which would, at hand, destroy capitalism. Of course, this is all unintentionally created.

Koba Junior

7th May 2012, 00:05

The bourgeoisie will face certain expropriation. Then, many of them may face prison or death.

Blake's Baby

7th May 2012, 01:41

... If Young Marx = Marxism, I'm not Marxism. My Marxism focuses solely on the Older Marx, the Marx whose head was not tucked in his ass...

No, your head is up your own ass and you're not a Marxist.

Rafiq

7th May 2012, 01:46

No, your head is up your own ass and you're not a Marxist.

You're a Left Communist? Self Declared? Well, then, Left Communism, as all currents of Marxism, are influenced by Older Marx and not Younger Marx.

Except of course, for a specific tendency which is antithetical to Marxism: Humanist Marxism, and the likes of Jean Paul Sartre. They blame Engels for corrupting Marx, and so on.

Then again, as Marx said to those Young Marx French Socialists: If that is Marxism, then I am not a Marxist.

I am an OldMarxist, if this be the case.

corolla

7th May 2012, 01:49

Humanist 4 lyfe

Rafiq

7th May 2012, 01:53

Humanist 4 lyfe

What purpose do you serve other than to be an obnoxious troll? At least some of the other trolls were capable of humor.

Koba Junior

7th May 2012, 01:57

Humanist 4 lyfe

I'm always put ill-at-ease when a leftist describes himself as a humanist.

Blake's Baby

7th May 2012, 02:04

You're a Left Communist? Self Declared? Well, then, Left Communism, as all currents of Marxism, are influenced by Older Marx and not Younger Marx...

It's not either/or. Some of us are inflenced by both the older and the younger Marx. Left Communism, indeed Marxism as a whole, is not incompatible with the young Marx. If you think that one can't be a Marxist without rejecting Marx's early work then you're merely demonstrating your own theoretical shortcomings.

corolla

7th May 2012, 02:10

I'm always put ill-at-ease when a leftist describes himself as a humanist.
Good.

WanderingCactus

7th May 2012, 02:39

No one knows if it is the end of class society, or what it could possibly look like. And what do you mean? The Bourgeoisie exist to retain their own class existence, and nothing otherwise. Should they not submit to the revolution, they are to be liquidated.

A fetish of Violence you say? No, just a recognition of it's necessity. Violence is not something which you can just push to the side. It takes a lot to not be afraid of it, both to use it and to recognize it's potential. A lot of people lack this capability.

Yes, naturally a revolution is a violent process - not wanting to latch onto violent rhetoric does not mean that I am "pushing it to the side". The fact that there is violence in revolution does not mean that it needs to be a central focus of discussion. It's basically a topic without substance - yeah, we get it, violence.

Was this not the young, Humanist Marx? Young Marx has nothing to do with Old, Materialist, Scientific Marx, you know. That quote is from a segment from one of his works in 1844.

I don't, at all, Identity with Young Marx. If Young Marx = Marxism, I'm not Marxism. My Marxism focuses solely on the Older Marx, the Marx whose head was not tucked in his ass.

Old Marx was no humanist. And he, like me, had a "Violence Fetish", as you put it. He was strictly scientific, and "Cold, Heartless". A full Materialist, that would later give birth to the currents of Marxism that flourished in the early 20th century.

This is mindless rambling. There's really not much that I can say in response. I can only say that I am influenced by Marx young and old.

honest john's firing squad

7th May 2012, 13:23

Good.
I don't even know what humanism is but if it makes stalinists feel uncomfortable then it can't be all that bad.

Jimmie Higgins

7th May 2012, 13:41

It is not about Human liberation. It will never be. It is about Proletarian emancipation. In industrialized countries, fuck all to the rest of "Humanity".

Humanism is counterrevolutionary.

Antihumanism is counter-revolutionary because the basic idea of humanism is that humans can rationally construct and organize society. It is opposed to the ideas that god or some kind of historical determination or "great individuals" make history and society. Of course not all humanism is Marxist - not by a long shot, but to be Marxist is to be a particular kind of humanist, a historical materialist one.

The only reason a kind of basic "universal humanity" is impossible (and why humans currently can not create a universally rational and just society) is because humanity is divided into (opposing) classes. Working class power isn't aimed at just replacing one class rule with a majority class rule, but the majority who needs no subordinate classes in order to run society. So worker's revolution is a means to workers power which is potentially a means to universal human liberation and the end of classes.

Rafiq

7th May 2012, 22:48

It's not either/or. Some of us are inflenced by both the older and the younger Marx. Left Communism, indeed Marxism as a whole, is not incompatible with the young Marx. If you think that one can't be a Marxist without rejecting Marx's early work then you're merely demonstrating your own theoretical shortcomings.

Typically, all currents of Marxism that developed after the death of Marx left off exactly where Old Marx left off: Old Marx, by that time, had previously dumped most of his Young Marx convictions, with few exceptions (Of which are not Humanist in any way). What we call Marxism today emerged from that, i.e. the Combination of both Marx and Engels. It was only the likes of few Bourgeois decendent "Philosophers" and moralists like Jean Paul Sartre that saught a revival of Young Marx.

In most cases, those (Marxists) who adhere to Young Marx's humanism do so for either to reasons:

1. The abandonment of their previous religious convictions put them in a state of moral crsies, i.e. they needed to "Fill the hole" of what their religions previously filled, and fear without this moral framework, no social framework can survive.

2. It gives them a meaning to their life, of some sorts. Perhaps to them, it's more motivating to call yourself a "Revolutionary" and invent a "Liberation of Humanity" struggle, and then arrogantly claim it for Marxism.

3. They are ideologically insecure, and are ceceptable to Red Scare propaganda, even if they do not realize it. These people tend to not only adhere to Young Marx humanism, but accept the Bourgeois family structure and even criticize Marx for demanding it's abolishment.

Rafiq

7th May 2012, 22:52

Yes, naturally a revolution is a violent process - not wanting to latch onto violent rhetoric does not mean that I am "pushing it to the side". The fact that there is violence in revolution does not mean that it needs to be a central focus of discussion. It's basically a topic without substance - yeah, we get it, violence.

And come the revolution, fools like you will crawl back in their basement. Discussion in regards to violence is of absolute necessity, to put to test those who cry for "Revolution". Can you still call yourself a Leftist and be faced with the vision of mass violence, in a revolutionary situation?

Someone like you, in the end, when critically thinking about it, would most likely end up dumping his socialist convictions. This is, of course, why many don't like to divulge into the topic: Because of the Red Scare propaganda.

This is mindless rambling. There's really not much that I can say in response. I can only say that I am influenced by Marx young and old.

You can't adhere to both. They have contradictory views. You can choose between Historical Materialism and Humanism.

corolla

7th May 2012, 22:56

This is mindless rambling.

All of Rafiq's posts are mindless rambling.

Come the revolution, will you be prepared to engage in mass violence? As a high school student living in the United States of America, Rafiq certainly knows all about mass violence and how prepared he will be to engage in it, and is definitely not posturing at all when he celebrates it. /sarcasm

Rafiq

7th May 2012, 23:01

Antihumanism is counter-revolutionary because the basic idea of humanism is that humans can rationally construct and organize society.

That isn't at all what defines Humanism, in fact, the concept of Humans being the sole creators of History (But not intentionally or as they please) Is one of the core tenets of Historical Materialism. That isn't at all a moral conviction, it's a Scientific fact, dare I say, a law. Humanism, on the contrary, poses as a pathetic "filling in of the gaps" to replace what previously was called Religious objective morality.

Revolutionary Morality, which isn't inherent to Marxism, but of Communism, itself does not put emphasis on the "Liberation of the Human species". There is no human species. There is our class, the enemy, and those who we can deem useful in crushing our Human class enemy. That is the point. We will not do well in excluding the Bourgeois class from what we call the Human species, and claim that they are all together an enemy of it. They are just as much a part of what we call a Human as anyone else.

This is why it bothers me when certain Leftists like to say "Human nature is inherently good". They make it as if the Bourgeois class does not belong to the Human race, that they are some kind of obscure and bizarre abomination of it that seeks to deter it's "Objectivly progressive developments".

It is opposed to the ideas that god or some kind of historical determination or "great individuals" make history and society.

Which is why it is antithetical to Marxian materialism. Humans are mere products of the mode of production they are living in - Yes, even Communists.

Of course not all humanism is Marxist - not by a long shot, but to be Marxist is to be a particular kind of humanist, a historical materialist one.

Humanism is a particular ethical framework, where there isn't any written ethical doctrine inherent to Historical Materialism. To abandon the scientific method in favor of Universal morality would imply you do not hold the title of a Marxist.

The only reason a kind of basic "universal humanity" is impossible (and why humans currently can not create a universally rational and just society) is because humanity is divided into (opposing) classes.

A universally rational and just society? It sounds awful Utopian. As a Marxist, I don't seek an aim to create a better society, and use the proletariat or anything else as a means of attaining this state of affairs. That is one of the tenets of Historical Materialism, as described by Marx. To suggest otherwise is - Undoubtedly Utopian.

Working class power isn't aimed at just replacing one class rule with a majority class rule, but the majority who needs no subordinate classes in order to run society.

But it is not moral: the only aim of the proletariat, the highest expression of it's interest next to Revolution, is to abolish itself. This doesn't mean "Saving Humanity" or any of that nonsense. As a matter of fact, a lot of humans will have to be butchered to guarantee this. You cannot simply claim all of humanity for one movement.

So worker's revolution is a means to workers power which is potentially a means to universal human liberation and the end of classes.

Koba Junior

7th May 2012, 23:03

"Humanism" puts me ill-at-ease because it has historically been used, among so-called leftists, as code for the dismantling of revolutionary gains or an attempt to "include" the bourgeoisie (or at least preserve its method of exploitation) in the revolutionary construction of socialism. There couldn't be much more anti-human than that.

Rafiq

7th May 2012, 23:04

All of Rafiq's posts are mindless rambling.

Come the revolution, will you be prepared to engage in mass violence? As a high school student living in the United States of America, Rafiq certainly knows all about mass violence and how prepared he will be to engage in it, and is definitely not posturing at all when he celebrates it. /sarcasm

That's not the point, you fucking piece of shit. The point isn't to be ready to "Engage in Mass violence" but to accept it's necessity with no illusions, to come into terms with it, without simply just ignoring it and brushing it off to the side.

I would never suggest anyone, on such a site like this should prepare for mass violence. That's ludicrous.

Koba Junior

7th May 2012, 23:07

It is opposed to the ideas that god or some kind of historical determination or "great individuals" make history and society. Of course not all humanism is Marxist - not by a long shot, but to be Marxist is to be a particular kind of humanist, a historical materialist one.

There is a stark contradiction here. On the one hand, humanism can be historically materialist. On the other hand, humanism rejects that society and the course of human history is historically determined. This contradiction is irreconcilable.

corolla

7th May 2012, 23:26

That's not the point, you fucking piece of shit. The point isn't to be ready to "Engage in Mass violence" but to accept it's necessity with no illusions, to come into terms with it, without simply just ignoring it and brushing it off to the side.

I would never suggest anyone, on such a site like this should prepare for mass violence. That's ludicrous.

No, but you made the comment about people crawling back into their basement come the revolution, as if your abstract teenage violence fetishism from the comfort of your computer somehow proves you're prepared to fearlessly shed blood.

I doubt that anyone on here denies that class violence is an inevitable part of any revolution. But it is more than that with you. You seem to obsess over and get off on the idea of violence, rather than simply recognizing its necessity.

At any rate, I don't think young communists living in the United States during a period of still relatively low class struggle are in any position to "come to terms with" mass violence. Under the present conditions it is, at best, simply an academic exercise divorced from any real world experience, and at worst, juvenile tough guy posturing.

Also, as comical as it is, could you please stop calling me a "fucking piece of shit"? I feel like I'm in a BDSM chamber :lol:

Brosa Luxemburg

7th May 2012, 23:50

I doubt that anyone on here denies that class violence is an inevitable part of any revolution.

Wrong. Lots of people seem not to.

corolla

7th May 2012, 23:53

Outside of OI? Like who?

Brosa Luxemburg

7th May 2012, 23:55

There is a quite significant minority of pacifists on the site actually. For just one example:
http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=428

corolla

8th May 2012, 00:01

Well I have not seen anyone argue for pacifism on here, so.

Brosa Luxemburg

8th May 2012, 00:02

Well I have not seen anyone argue for pacifism on here, so.

You also just joined, lol :D

corolla

8th May 2012, 00:07

As I presume is the case with many people here, I was a lurker for quite a long time before I registered. In any event, I don't believe anyone involved in this thread is a pacifist, so my point still stands.

Revolution starts with U

8th May 2012, 00:41

There is a quite significant minority of pacifists on the site actually. For just one example:
http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=428

Of course the first line being;
"I'm not necessarily a pacifist, but there needs to be some kind of balance to all the blood thirsty romanticism of violent revolution here" :lol:

Jimmie Higgins

8th May 2012, 09:14

There is a stark contradiction here. On the one hand, humanism can be historically materialist. On the other hand, humanism rejects that society and the course of human history is historically determined. This contradiction is irreconcilable.And history is made by God or by human forces such as class conflict and the relations of production? There is no contradiction here. Just as there's no contradiction in saying: a whale lives under water and is a mammal, not all mammals live under water. Or, since we're talking ideas here: Mormonism is a specific kind of Christianity but most Christians don't believe the same things as Mormons. It's not contradictory, it's a broad category (humanism) and a specific category (Marxism). Does that make sense?

"Humanism" puts me ill-at-ease because it has historically been used, among so-called leftists, as code for the dismantling of revolutionary gains or an attempt to "include" the bourgeoisie (or at least preserve its method of exploitation) in the revolutionary construction of socialism. There couldn't be much more anti-human than that.And the terms socialism, communism, democracy, and marxism have been used by so-called leftists to justify exploitation and class rule. There's no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater or try and rewrite history because people have abused concepts or that concepts are view or treated differently based on the class consciousness of the user.

Obviously I don't support bourgeois and petty-bourgeois humanist outlooks, I think Marxism is a particular kind of working class humanism that resolves many of the problems and contradictions of the bourgeois "universalist" humanism (at least problems from a class perspective).

That isn't at all what defines Humanism, in fact, the concept of Humans being the sole creators of History (But not intentionally or as they please) Is one of the core tenets of Historical Materialism.Yes, that's what I'm argueing - not that any kind of humanism is synonomous with Marxism, but that, broadly, Marxism (historical materialism) follows from the humanistic traddition - it is a specific, materialist, and class based view of HOW humans create society as opposed to how socicety is all god's plan or that contemporary society is the only way things could be organized.

That isn't at all a moral conviction, it's a Scientific fact, dare I say, a law. Humanism, on the contrary, poses as a pathetic "filling in of the gaps" to replace what previously was called Religious objective morality. No, we are arguing different things. You are using specific ways that humanism has been expressed to discount that marxism is broadly categorized as part of the humanist tradition. People can develop fucked-up science too, use genetic to try and prove bourgeois myths about inherent social behaviors, but that doesn't necessarily mean that science or genetics are wrong, just that they way people approach knowledge is not without class entanglements.

Revolutionary Morality, which isn't inherent to Marxism, but of Communism, itself does not put emphasis on the "Liberation of the Human species". There is no human species. There is our class, the enemy, and those who we can deem useful in crushing our Human class enemy. That is the point. We will not do well in excluding the Bourgeois class from what we call the Human species, and claim that they are all together an enemy of it. They are just as much a part of what we call a Human as anyone else. Preventing oppression by any means necessary does not contradict humanism. I think you misunderstand humanism to mean "universalism" or something.

This is why it bothers me when certain Leftists like to say "Human nature is inherently good". They make it as if the Bourgeois class does not belong to the Human race, that they are some kind of obscure and bizarre abomination of it that seeks to deter it's "Objectivly progressive developments". Yes I don't think this would be a marxist view, what does this have to do with the arguement at hand? I never argued that all humanist views and expressions are Marxist; rather Marxism is part of that tradition just as the Communist Manifesto is a pamphlet, but not all pamphlets are communist.

Which is why it is antithetical to Marxian materialism. Humans are mere products of the mode of production they are living in - Yes, even Communists. Yes, but do the relations and modes of production come from God or are they developed from human actions and relations. I'm not arguing and Marxism does not argue that humans can create any kind of organization, but that society is not the result of divine intervention or "the best of all possible worlds" but from human actions and interactions... implying that they can be changed - obviously within what is materially possible.

Humanism is a particular ethical framework, where there isn't any written ethical doctrine inherent to Historical Materialism. To abandon the scientific method in favor of Universal morality would imply you do not hold the title of a Marxist. Humanism is not a specific philosophy, it is a broad philosophical category... it can include a range of views, many opposing.

A universally rational and just society? It sounds awful Utopian. Within class society it is which is why Marxism rightfully rejects thinking that a new society can be formed by "new ideas" alone - it has to come from the material conditions. Universality in humans is impossible why? Is it because as po-mo would have it that all humans are irreconcilable and inherently prone to small groups or is just completely autonomous and subjective? I think it's because we live in class societies where my (and people like me) material interests are opposed to the interests of other groups, specifically the ruling class. With the elimination of class divisions, universality in a broad sense is possible because our most basic needs and interests will be universal - our specific needs and interests will be personal obviously, but in the broad sense, people would not have fundamentally conflicting and opposing interests.

So it's materialist, not idealist and utopian.

As a Marxist, I don't seek an aim to create a better society, and use the proletariat or anything else as a means of attaining this state of affairs. That is one of the tenets of Historical Materialism, as described by Marx. To suggest otherwise is - Undoubtedly Utopian. Expropriating the expropriators is how we, as workers, can create a better society. What they hell are you doing if this is not your aim?

Marx only talked about the uselessness of trying to create some specific scheme for society in an idealist manner.

But it is not moral: the only aim of the proletariat, the highest expression of it's interest next to Revolution, is to abolish itself. This doesn't mean "Saving Humanity" or any of that nonsense. As a matter of fact, a lot of humans will have to be butchered to guarantee this. You cannot simply claim all of humanity for one movement. Who said anything about moral - you keep saying this and you're just taking swipes at straw-men. You are conflating a humanistic view of society with some kind of specific universal moralism. To be a humanist doesn't mean seeing "all violence as equally harmful" or whatever you are trying to argue against. Again, humanism in the broad sense was the development of a view that human agency matters - not some divine plan or special blood or whatnot. This viewpoint was developed with other bourgeois philosophies and for the most part most humanism takes bourgeois morality and assumptions for granted - so does hard science, but no knowledge in class society is free from class-tinting. Humanism can be idealistic, it can be bunk, and it can be class based and materialist: Marxism.

ComradeOm

8th May 2012, 13:37

And come the revolution, fools like you will crawl back in their basement. Discussion in regards to violence is of absolute necessity, to put to test those who cry for "Revolution". Can you still call yourself a Leftist and be faced with the vision of mass violence, in a revolutionary situation?

Someone like you, in the end, when critically thinking about it, would most likely end up dumping his socialist convictions. This is, of course, why many don't like to divulge into the topic: Because of the Red Scare propagandaRAGH, RAGH, RAGH. Hear me roar and watch me strut

The reason why some on the left are reluctant to discuss violence is because of those ignorant fools who fetishise and glorify the act of violence itself. There's no thought there, no analysis, no acceptance of necessity; just a stupidly julienne eagerness to parade one's revolutionary credentials by calling for rivers of blood. Those who condense a revolution to a mere act of violence, and that phrase is deliberately chosen, are blinkered at best and unwitting counter-revolutionaries at worst

So yes, we understand that you're the 'real' revolutionary who would bare his breast to the tyrant's bayonet, and we're all secret liberals who faint at the mere thought of blood, but this blustering misanthropic determinism gets tiring after a while. You should have grown out of this phase a long time ago

You can't adhere to both. They have contradictory views. You can choose between Historical Materialism and Humanism.Thou shalt have no other gods before me

Ismail

8th May 2012, 21:11

Rafiq

9th May 2012, 20:08

No, but you made the comment about people crawling back into their basement come the revolution, as if your abstract teenage violence fetishism from the comfort of your computer somehow proves you're prepared to fearlessly shed blood.

Yes, come the revolution, of which has no clear sign.

The point is to come into terms with it, for, if not, come a revolution, they would be horrified at what they are to see. That is the point.

I doubt that anyone on here denies that class violence is an inevitable part of any revolution. But it is more than that with you. You seem to obsess over and get off on the idea of violence, rather than simply recognizing its necessity.

Please provide quotes and examples to confirm this. Of course you can't, it's just baseless speculation. Perhaps if you actually analyze my posts and read them for what they are, instead of mystifying them, you wouldn't come to such an obscure conclusion.

At any rate, I don't think young communists living in the United States during a period of still relatively low class struggle are in any position to "come to terms with" mass violence.

To come to terms with the concept of mass violence, they are. Many "radicals" here have ignored the concept all together, even though it may be of great necessity for any revolution. They deem the radical left as some kind of simple orienation, and small deviation from modern Liberalist ideological structure. When in truth, Communism is of totality, and will stop at nothing to violate and destroy these Liberalist ideological mystification.

Under the present conditions it is, at best, simply an academic exercise divorced from any real world experience, and at worst, juvenile tough guy posturing.

More personal attacks, wonderful. I would not be as "Violent" as I am, if not for going through experiences which would persuade me to do so. You lack the experience I have that would make you hold such convictions.

In truth, it is you who is divorced from real world experience, from real world violence.

Also, as comical as it is, could you please stop calling me a "fucking piece of shit"? I feel like I'm in a BDSM chamber :lol:

You are a piece of shit, the scum of the scum, as a matter of fact, for this thread at least.

Rafiq

9th May 2012, 20:11

Apparently Hoxha once said that the more people are inclined towards revolution, the less violent said revolution will be be. This is something proven by the Russian Revolution (which was barely violent.) I guess in Rafiq's view this is more evidence he was a liberal insane madman "Stalinist" or whatever.

The Russian Revolution wasn't violent?

It was probably one of the most violent revolutions in the history of the usage of the term itself. Of course the act of siezing power would be barely violent. What happens next? These are all intertwined with the fate of the reovlution, and therefore are part of hte revolution itself.

Opportunist scum..

Koba Junior

9th May 2012, 20:21

And history is made by God or by human forces such as class conflict and the relations of production? There is no contradiction here. Just as there's no contradiction in saying: a whale lives under water and is a mammal, not all mammals live under water. Or, since we're talking ideas here: Mormonism is a specific kind of Christianity but most Christians don't believe the same things as Mormons. It's not contradictory, it's a broad category (humanism) and a specific category (Marxism). Does that make sense?

Given the contradiction I examined, the explanation is unsatisfactory, I'm sorry to say. Humanism accepts Marxian historical materialism on the one hand, while rejecting that human society is historically determined on the other. To accept Marxian historical materialism is to accept that society is historically determined. To deny the historical, material determination of human society is to deny Marxian historical materialism. It isn't so much about a subcategory fitting within a broader category so much as it is saying, "A whale is mammal ... and it has gills and breathes underwater."

ComradeOm

9th May 2012, 20:37

As for the remarks made on behalf of Comradeom, they're nothing more than personal attacks, of which require no serious or critical analysis, therefore I'll ignore them, like any good Misantrhopic Determinist would.You talking to me? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQkpes3dgzg)

Honestly, there's very little there to engage with and certainly not when your posts are so incoherent and erratic. You know it's not going to be a productive discussion when people are labelled "a piece of shit, the scum of the scum" for not sharing your fetish for violence and belief in the sanctifying power of blood

(Incidentally, I am ComradeOm. I'm making these comments. Nobody else is making them on my behalf)

Koba Junior

9th May 2012, 20:47

Rafiq

9th May 2012, 20:51

RAGH, RAGH, RAGH. Hear me roar and watch me strut

And i'd expect more out of who, whom I thought to be at the least capable of having a debate without resorting to personal attacks.

The reason why some on the left are reluctant to discuss violence is because of those ignorant fools who fetishise and glorify the act of violence itself.

That's quite an assertion. On the contrary, they are scared of it, and have been since the 1990's. They have been so keen in trying to adjust and become a part of the postmodern Liberal dream, that they've lost revolutionary ambition. Of course I cannot blame them personally, as this was a mere result of the wide scale international defeat of the proletariat, and the rise of fictitious capital, etc.

They oppose violence because they fear it. They fear being associated with it, on behalf of the Bourgeois Liberal structure which dominates all currents of academia and intellectual space.

The past of the left's Revolutionary Terror, from Robesspiere to Lenin, become for them, of an embarrassment. As a result, it gave rise to an obscure combination of Liberalism and the remnants of the dead Communist movement: Peaceful Libertarian Socialism.

There's no thought there, no analysis, no acceptance of necessity; just a stupidly julienne eagerness to parade one's revolutionary credentials by calling for rivers of blood.

The romanticization of Violence, I fully concur, is Idealist and antimarxist. But to not fear it, to deem it not as something immoral, but of potential use is not at all useless, it is, on the contrary, an Attribute. Those who go out of there way to demonize violence and criticize the use of it morally have no sense of Marxism or Materialism.

Those who condense a revolution to a mere act of violence, and that phrase is deliberately chosen, are blinkered at best and unwitting counter-revolutionaries at worst

I've never done such a thing. You'd be a fool to think otherwise. Revolution can be violent, or it cannot be. But inevitably, what comes after will be violent. A lot of people take this in the abstract and don't even dare take a minute to think about what this means. The point of a revolution is the highest expression of a class's interest, in the Proletariat's case, to abolish itself, which cannot be done without destroying it's class enemy, which seeks to retain it's own status, and the status of the proletariat. It would be wonderful if they could be destroyed peaceful, really.

As I said, I'm pessimistic. I don't think so.

So yes, we understand that you're the 'real' revolutionary who would bare his breast to the tyrant's bayonet, and we're all secret liberals who faint at the mere thought of blood,

In truth, actually, I consider Theory, today, to be more important. I have more respect for Marxist theoreticians then Marxists in "Practice" today. As I've said, there isn't even a clear sign of a revolutionary proletarian movement in clear sight.

but this blustering misanthropic determinism gets tiring after a while.

The mark of an Idealist cowering behind the theoretical structures of Marxism is when he labels Materialism as "Determinist". Do you even know what determinism is? It certainly isn't saying that material force determines Individuals, because that is a core tenet of Materialism. Determinism is this concept that history is Linear, and that the "future" is already pre determined for us. This is hardly the case in Marxism, where it is aknwoledged that if we were to go back millions of year,s the world would be a very different place.

It is because the required mechanisms for material change are many. Take for example, the several classes in capitalist society, each and every one has potential for class dictatorship.

You should have grown out of this phase a long time ago

There wasn't a phase. You've all invented one for me. Initially, when I dumped my Liberalist views around maybe a little more than one year ago, never was I motivated by a fetish for violence. As a matter of fact, whenever violent remarks were deployed, there were done so with the intention of shock value, to deploy it as a benchmark for our understanding of violence. Again, I am indifferent. I wouldn't cower in the sight of violence, as I never have. If it is of use, then all the better.

Actually, it could be said, to a great extent, that it is you (Liberalists) who claim I have a fetish for violence, because you are shocked and appalled at mediocre comments in regards to violence made by me, so you have to create from them something beyond themselves, i.e. Violence fetishism. It is not enough for you to sit and acknowledge it's potential use, for you aren't used to this. You have to familiarize it, and in doing so, call it a "violence fetish", as you are familiar with that crowd.

Thou shalt have no other gods before me

Rafiq

9th May 2012, 20:51

I replyed to you anyway, Comradeom.

Rafiq

9th May 2012, 20:53

You talking to me? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQkpes3dgzg)

Honestly, there's very little there to engage with and certainly not when your posts are so incoherent and erratic. You know it's not going to be a productive discussion when people are labelled "a piece of shit, the scum of the scum" for not sharing your fetish for violence and belief in the sanctifying power of blood

(Incidentally, I am ComradeOm. I'm making these comments. Nobody else is making them on my behalf)

What, that Corolla scumbag? He's a troll who has been stalking my posts for the past weeks now, with obnoxious one liners and cheap personal attacks. He has every reason to be called a piece of shit. Never would I do so to someone who didn't deserve it. It's only now, when he started to actually try and engage in discussion when I previously notified an Administrator in regards to his trolling.

It saddens me you'd blindly just accept this illusion, that I'm calling people names spontaneously because they disagree with me.

Rafiq

9th May 2012, 20:54

I hardly think Comrade Hoxha was an "opportunist" by any stretch of the imagination.

Even if that was true, Ismail, by all means is.

Omsk

9th May 2012, 20:55

Even if that was true, Ismail, by all means is.

What were his opportunistic actions,stances? On what do you base this view? This reminds me of the false accusations laid forth by non-debaters like Deicide.

Koba Junior

9th May 2012, 21:00

Even if that was true, Ismail, by all means is.

So you say in response to his quoting Hoxha, the man who faced extreme obstacles in maintaining Albania's independence and the gains of the socialist revolution in that country. The fellow knows a thing or two about the successful implementation of socialism.

Revolution starts with U

9th May 2012, 21:00

I feel like it is my duty to go through Rafiq's post and point out to him his fetish for violence, which everybody sees but himself... but that just doesn't seem all that fun.

Side question; do we consider the American Revolution to be a genuine revolution? And wasn't it relatively peaceful compared to the French and Russian ones?

Koba Junior

9th May 2012, 21:06

Side question; do we consider the American Revolution to be a genuine revolution? And wasn't it relatively peaceful compared to the French and Russian ones?

Wouldn't it be a bourgeois-democratic revolution?

Rafiq

9th May 2012, 21:10

What were his opportunistic actions,stances? On what do you base this view? This reminds me of the false accusations laid forth by non-debaters like Deicide.

Ismail brought up Hoxha's opinion on a subject which had nothing to do with him (as usual). He did it only to for fill his own ideological re assurance. That's why he liked ComradeOm's post, not simply because it was leveled against me, but because he checked up to see if Dear Leader concurred or not.

Tell me how Ismail really wants to contribute to the quality of this thread.

Rafiq

9th May 2012, 21:12

I feel like it is my duty to go through Rafiq's post and point out to him his fetish for violence, which everybody sees but himself... but that just doesn't seem all that fun.

Do it. Go through my posts. I dare you.

Side question; do we consider the American Revolution to be a genuine revolution? And wasn't it relatively peaceful compared to the French and Russian ones?

On the contrary, the American revolution was one of the most violent. It saddens me, for your own intellectual sake, that you would even mention this. How easy of an argument is that?

You know, the Revolution that was a war at the same time? And yes, counter revolutionaries were killed without trial and so on.

Koba Junior

9th May 2012, 21:12

Brosa Luxemburg

9th May 2012, 21:17

You know, the Revolution that was a war at the same time? And yes, counter revolutionaries were killed without trial and so on.

Actually, it's interesting. General George Washington killed any soldier that complained about lack of food, water, supplies, etc. So much for the "humane hero" we are fed in school.

corolla

9th May 2012, 21:18

What, that Corolla scumbag? He's a troll who has been stalking my posts for the past weeks now, with obnoxious one liners and cheap personal attacks. He has every reason to be called a piece of shit. Never would I do so to someone who didn't deserve it. It's only now, when he started to actually try and engage in discussion when I previously notified an Administrator in regards to his trolling.

It saddens me you'd blindly just accept this illusion, that I'm calling people names spontaneously because they disagree with me.

I'm not a troll and I haven't been 'stalking' your posts. And you do spontaneously call people names when they disagree with you, which must be obvious to everyone here who has read any of your posts. But I am pretty much done responding to you at this point since it is quite obvious by now that you are unable to engage in any sort of coherent discussion. Carry on with your fevered, incomprehensible ranting.

Omsk

9th May 2012, 21:29

Ismail brought up Hoxha's opinion on a subject which had nothing to do with him (as usual). He did it only to for fill his own ideological re assurance. That's why he liked ComradeOm's post, not simply because it was leveled against me, but because he checked up to see if Dear Leader concurred or not.

Tell me how Ismail really wants to contribute to the quality of this thread.

That is internet dicussion not opportunism.Again,if you judge if someone is an opportunist or not based on a post in internet dicussion,than i really don't know what to add.

As for the 'thanks' that you mentioned,i remember when you thanked my post which was about the Red Terror,and how the Bolsheviks had few choices. You liked it because you share the same view (The stance on the measures taken by the Bolsheviks.),and wanted "support in numbers" - not because we share some similar politics.

You are an opportunist.

Rafiq

9th May 2012, 21:34

I'm not a troll and I haven't been 'stalking' your posts. And you do spontaneously call people names when they disagree with you, which must be obvious to everyone here who has read any of your posts. But I am pretty much done responding to you at this point since it is quite obvious by now that you are unable to engage in any sort of coherent discussion. Carry on with your fevered, incomprehensible ranting.

I've only called you names because you deserve it. I insult people in a "Harsh" manner when they insult me, whether in the snotty Liberal sense (NGNM85) or just outright trolling.

For example, when you said "Dur hur silly high school student has no conception of real violence ha ha" that makes blood boil. Who are you to sit here and tell me, whose gone through things you couldn't even articulate, about experience in regards to violence?

Revolution starts with U

9th May 2012, 21:34

Actually, it's interesting. General George Washington killed any soldier that complained about lack of food, water, supplies, etc. So much for the "humane hero" we are fed in school.

Do it. Go through my posts. I dare you.

On the contrary, the American revolution was one of the most violent. It saddens me, for your own intellectual sake, that you would even mention this. How easy of an argument is that?

You know, the Revolution that was a war at the same time? And yes, counter revolutionaries were killed without trial and so on.

Can you guys source this, because as far as I have been told (and trust me, I don't trust mainstream history [which is why I asked the questions instead of just stating it outright]) the leadership was anti-torture, pro habeus corpus, etc?

Rafiq

9th May 2012, 21:36

That is internet dicussion not opportunism.Again,if you judge if someone is an opportunist or not based on a post in internet dicussion,than i really don't know what to add.

As for the 'thanks' that you mentioned,i remember when you thanked my post which was about the Red Terror,and how the Bolsheviks had few choices. You liked it because you share the same view (The stance on the measures taken by the Bolsheviks.),and wanted "support in numbers" - not because we share some similar politics.

You are an opportunist.

Fine. Ismail is an opportunist intellectually. Better?

I thanked your post, not because I checked if dear leader approved, but because I fully concurred with it. It is not as if I jumped in the thread and started talking about X influence, for no fucking reason.

Ele'ill

9th May 2012, 21:40

Shut the fuck up and get back on topic.

Brosa Luxemburg

9th May 2012, 21:41

Can you guys source this, because as far as I have been told (and trust me, I don't trust mainstream history [which is why I asked the questions instead of just stating it outright]) the leadership was anti-torture, pro habeus corpus, etc?

Leonard W. Levy's book Jefferson and Civil Liberties talks about how George Washington, Jefferson, etc. had no tolerance for opposing views on politics during the revolution and they considered enemies to be those "in thought, not just in deed".

EDIT: Yeah, they executed them.

Brosa Luxemburg

9th May 2012, 21:43

Also, entire Loyalist writings and publications were censored and Loyalists were executed without trial, just as Loyalists executed Patriots without trial and censored them.

Revolution starts with U

9th May 2012, 22:02

Not so much this "Direct Democracy" nonsense. Democracy is no means sacred, nor it is a tenet of communist ideology. We do not favor Liberty, Individualism, etc. But *emancipation*. Was the army of run away slaves under Spartacus democratic? We do not know, but this (question) divulges from the point: This mentality that as slaves we have nothing to lose, that we would rather die in battle against our masters in honor than to live as slaves, for the very act of dying in battle in this case is Revolutionary in nature, you die having already escaped.
http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2426006&postcount=113
(Note that I thanked this post, so obviously I don't disagree with all of it)

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2425991&postcount=14

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2420669&postcount=101

This is just from a quick scan. I'm sure everyone recognizes that you often like to speak in terms of "liquidating" the bourgeoisie, etc... even if you later fall back to the position of "we should be ready for mass violence," a point with which I wholeheartedly agree.

I'm not trying to put you down or anything, just temper your wildly violent tendency :lol:

Thx Brosa for the source. I'll check it out :)

Ismail

9th May 2012, 22:24

The Russian Revolution wasn't violent?

It was probably one of the most violent revolutions in the history of the usage of the term itself. Of course the act of siezing power would be barely violent. What happens next? These are all intertwined with the fate of the reovlution, and therefore are part of hte revolution itself.Don't be an idiot. The fact is that as the months passed the amount of Bolshevik workers grew rapidly up to the point of the seizure of power being relatively non-violent. In Albania by contrast its revolution was violent and three years long, being as it was a part of the national liberation war and in conditions where it had to convince people of the correctness of its path in less-than-stellar conditions. The point is that your violence fetishism is lame and has no historical basis.

Anyway, to answer the first post, in Albania the property of collaborators (which the overwhelming amount of bourgeoisie were deemed as) was confiscated without compensation and a land reform program in the countryside broke up the large landowners while prohibiting the hiring of labor and the buying/selling of land. An extraordinary tax on war profits got rid of the economic base of the remaining bourgeoisie since failure to pay it (and it was so high that most couldn't) meant a confiscation of property as well. Also important were legislation which outlawed the use of more than a few persons for hired labor in any small business, the nationalization of major economic sectors, etc. By 1949 the economy was overwhelmingly in the state sector with the assistance of consumer cooperatives.

There wasn't really any case of ex-bourgeois persons serving in the government.

Rafiq

9th May 2012, 22:51

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2426006&postcount=113
(Note that I thanked this post, so obviously I don't disagree with all of it)

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2425991&postcount=14

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2420669&postcount=101

This is just from a quick scan. I'm sure everyone recognizes that you often like to speak in terms of "liquidating" the bourgeoisie, etc... even if you later fall back to the position of "we should be ready for mass violence," a point with which I wholeheartedly agree.

I'm not trying to put you down or anything, just temper your wildly violent tendency :lol:

Thx Brosa for the source. I'll check it out :)

There isn't an implicit signification that I have a violence fetish in any of those posts. The second one, was of course, as pointed out, for shock value (To not give them the upper hand, to not resort to their petty moralism. Of course we don't say Stalin should have killed more, but to imply that Stalin murdered people for no reason is troll worthy).

The third one, well, I don't really see how that implies a violence fetish.

Rafiq

9th May 2012, 22:55

Don't be an idiot. The fact is that as the months passed the amount of Bolshevik workers grew rapidly up to the point of the seizure of power being relatively non-violent.

By this definition, virtually every revolution is peaceful. The storming of the capital or whatever is irrelevant to the violent aftermath that would success it. You've dug yourself a hole. There cannot be a revolution without violence, and Hoxha was wrong. The Civil War, whether "Months passed" was still a determining factor in the Revolution's survival and therefore is part of the Revolutionary Struggle itself. Just as the Great Terror in France was.

In Albania by contrast its revolution was violent and three years long, being as it was a part of the national liberation war and in conditions where it had to convince people of the correctness of its path in less-than-stellar conditions. The point is that your violence fetishism is lame and has no historical basis.

For any Marxist, a revolution is the overthrowing of one class over another. In this case, the victory of the Albanian Petite Bourgeoisie. This wasn't in any way a proletarian revolution. But of course, it was, because Hoxha said so, even though a proletariat never existed.

Ismail

9th May 2012, 23:10

For any Marxist, a revolution is the overthrowing of one class over another. In this case, the victory of the Albanian Petite Bourgeoisie. This wasn't in any way a proletarian revolution. But of course, it was, because Hoxha said so, even though a proletariat never existed.A proletariat didn't exist? I guess all those strikes in 1930's Albania were a figment of the imagination of various authors, bourgeois and communist alike. Obviously the ratio of peasants to proletarians was quite unbalanced in favor of the former, but then again such was the case in Russia as well. It was the proletariat that was working in the major industrial centers in both cases, and it was the ideology of the proletariat and the interests of the proletariat which were expressed through its vanguard, the Communist Party of Albania.

Also the petty-bourgeoisie cannot rule a country. It's either the bourgeoisie or proletariat.

Rafiq

9th May 2012, 23:23

A proletariat didn't exist? I guess all those strikes in 1930's Albania were a figment of the imagination of various authors, bourgeois and communist alike. Obviously the ratio of peasants to proletarians was quite unbalanced in favor of the former, but then again such was the case in Russia as well. It was the proletariat that was working in the major industrial centers in both cases, and it was the ideology of the proletariat and the interests of the proletariat which were expressed through its vanguard, the Communist Party of Albania.

Not by the war it didn't. They did exist, but as you mentioned, yes, the Peasantry heavily outweighed them. But, what makes the distinction between the Russian Revolution and the Albanian "Revolution", is the latter adhered to brute Class Collaboration on the basis of National Unity, while the Russian Revolution denounced Nationalism to the fullest extent and only, and barely, aligned itself with the Peasantry. The PPSH was willing to align itself with the Bourgeoisie, and Urban Petite Bourgeoisie, if necessary.

So the class basis did not consist of Proletarians, at all.

Also the petty-bourgeoisie cannot rule a country. It's either the bourgeoisie or proletariat.

Should the Petite Bourgeoisie achieve it's class interest in achieving domination, it yes, becomes another Bourgeoisie. Though, that's almost exactly what happened.

And funny, you ignored the subject of whether the Russian Revolution was violent or not... Interesting...

Ismail

9th May 2012, 23:48

Not by the war it didn't. They did exist, but as you mentioned, yes, the Peasantry heavily outweighed them. But, what makes the distinction between the Russian Revolution and the Albanian "Revolution", is the latter adhered to brute Class Collaboration on the basis of National Unity, while the Russian Revolution denounced Nationalism to the fullest extent and only, and barely, aligned itself with the Peasantry. The PPSH was willing to align itself with the Bourgeoisie, and Urban Petite Bourgeoisie, if necessary.

So the class basis did not consist of Proletarians, at all.Did the CPA call for the unity of all who opposed fascism? Sure. But most of its largest allies on that side were people like Myslim Peza (an illiterate tribal leader), Baba Faja Martaneshi (a Bektashi cleric who was shot by the reactionary Dedebaba of the Bektashi faith in 1947 for proposing that clerics be married and shave their beards; the Dedebaba then shot himself due to the "communist domination" of Albania), Omer Nishani (a non-practicing doctor who played a role in the Comintern-backed bourgeois-democratic revolution of June 1924), etc. Hardly the Rockefellers of Albania. And this has nothing to do with the fact that the state power which was built throughout the war continuously purged itself of reactionary elements and, under the growing hegemony of the CPA, began to exercise more and more functions akin to that of the dictatorship of the proletariat up until liberation, when in fact, as Party history notes, tasks of a democratic character were not allowed to delay tasks of a socialist character, and in which the CPA clearly emerged triumphant.

After the war itself was over those who pretended to be "progressives" but who opposed the people's state power were removed from their positions and generally imprisoned, e.g. Gjergj Kokoshi (a professor.) Those within the CPA who held to the line of the bourgeoisie such as Sejfulla Malëshova were expelled.

The landowners and actual bourgeoisie overwhelmingly sided either with the quisling governments set up by the occupiers or with the Balli Kombëtar, both of which were destroyed by the CPA.

There was no coalition government in Albania after the war, unlike the Bolshevik-Left SR coalition after the revolution in Russia.

And funny, you ignored the subject of whether the Russian Revolution was violent or not... Interesting...I did? I said it was non-violent. Your reply to it does not change my view.

Rafiq

10th May 2012, 00:01

Did the CPA call for the unity of all who opposed fascism? Sure. But most of its largest allies on that side were people like Myslim Peza (an illiterate tribal leader), Baba Faja Martaneshi (a Bektashi cleric who was shot by the reactionary Dedebaba of the Bektashi faith in 1947 for proposing that clerics be married and shave their beards; the Dedebaba then shot himself due to the "communist domination" of Albania), Omer Nishani (a non-practicing doctor who played a role in the Comintern-backed bourgeois-democratic revolution of June 1924),

This isn't, by any means, a Scientific explanation. A Bourgeois ally is a Bourgeois ally. It just goes to show what Bourgeois Rationalism runs amok in your head, for you to say:

etc. Hardly the Rockefellers of Albania.What is Bourgeois, is Bourgeois, a Landlord is still a Landlord.

And this has nothing to do with the fact that the state power which was built throughout the war continuously purged itself of reactionary elements and, under the growing hegemony of the CPA, began to exercise more and more functions akin to that of the dictatorship of the proletariatDictatorship of the Proletariat? In what way? How could there exist a dictatorship of the proletariat when the proletariat was divorced from the Albanian "Revolution" to start, and that majority of Albanian proletarians were in themselves created by the Albanian State, something reserved only for the Bourgeois class? To say there existed proletarians means the Albanian Bourgeois state created them, and to create a proletarian is like creating a slave: It implies you are a class enemy.

What an absurd assertion on your behalf.

up until liberation, when in fact, as Party history notes, tasks of a democratic character were not allowed to delay tasks of a socialist character, and in which the CPA clearly emerged triumphant.
As Party history notes?

After the war itself was over those who pretended to be "progressives" but who opposed the people's state power were removed from their positions and generally imprisoned, e.g. Gjergj Kokoshi (a professor.) Those within the CPA who held to the line of the bourgeoisie such as Sejfulla Malëshova were expelled.Yes, we know the Bourgeoisie will kill it's Bourgeois counterparts, should they deem them as rivals. We know.

The landowners and actual bourgeoisie overwhelmingly sided either with the quisling governments set up by the occupiers or with the Balli Kombëtar, both of which were destroyed by the CPA.
But none the less these elements existed within the CPA.

There was no coalition government in Albania after the war, unlike the Bolshevik-Left SR coalition after the revolution in Russia.
Which was firstly a temporary coalition, very short lived, and secondly, the Left SR wasn't composed of members of the Russian Bourgeoisie, to my knowledge.

I did? I said it was non-violent. Your reply to it does not change my view.
You haven't provided a credible argument that would verify it was a peaceful revolution. Do enlighten us as to why you think it is. Or do you think the Russian Civil War, the struggle to defend the revolution, was not a part of the revolution?

And if so, who cares about whether the revolution is peaceful when the most violent of means are necessary to defend it? You fall flat on your face, Ismail. You dug yourself a hole.

Ismail

10th May 2012, 00:10

This isn't, by any means, a Scientific explanation. A Bourgeois ally is a Bourgeois ally.So tribal leaders are bourgeois?

What is Bourgeois, is Bourgeois, a Landlord is still a Landlord.They weren't landlords, and a non-practicing doctor who spent the 20's and 30's in exile writing for a Comintern-funded journal probably isn't a big deal either.

Dictatorship of the Proletariat? In what way? How could there exist a dictatorship of the proletariat when the proletariat was divorced from the Albanian "Revolution" to start, and that majority of Albanian proletarians were in themselves created by the Albanian State, something reserved only for the Bourgeois class? To say there existed proletarians means the Albanian Bourgeois state created them, and to create a proletarian is like creating a slave: It implies you are a class enemy.Again, don't be an idiot. They weren't "created" by the Albanian state, a proletariat did exist in Albania. Of the founding members of the CPA a sizable number were workers, including within the leadership.

As Party history notes?Indeed, the History of the Party of Labor of Albania (1971 edition) which, as with the case of the Short Course being edited by Stalin, was edited by Enver Hoxha.

But none the less these elements existed within the CPA.They did? Where? Do you mean the National Liberation Front?

Which was firstly a temporary coalition, very short lived, and secondly, the Left SR wasn't composed of members of the Russian Bourgeoisie, to my knowledge.Yeah, the Left SRs only conspired with the Russian bourgeoisie and kulaks to overthrow the Bolsheviks. That's so much better.

The fact is that the bourgeoisie had no political power in postwar Albania. They tried to organize opposition parties, of course, and were promptly arrested and/or shot.

You haven't provided a credible argument that would verify it was a peaceful revolution. Do enlighten us as to why you think it is. Or do you think the Russian Civil War, the struggle to defend the revolution, was not a part of the revolution?Do you have something wrong with you? Hoxha made the point that the more people side with a revolution at its start then the less violent said revolution will be. I don't see why this is some sort of hotly debated issue. The civil war wasn't conducted on the basis of proletarians versus proletarians. It was conducted on the basis of the proletarian state versus foreign armies and their bourgeois allies in the White armies and administrations. Obviously Hoxha wasn't propounding on some sort of law, but it is still fairly obvious that, on the whole, more loyalty of the proletariat to the revolutionary cause = easier time conducting a revolution.

Rafiq

10th May 2012, 00:24

So tribal leaders are bourgeois?

No, but many can be Landlords, like I pointed out. They certainly aren't Revolutionary in class character.

They weren't landlords, and a non-practicing doctor who spent the 20's and 30's in exile writing for a Comintern-funded journal probably isn't a big deal either.

If this said doctor was the embodiment of the classes collaborating with the CPA perhaps you'd have a point.

Again, don't be an idiot. They weren't "created" by the Albanian state, a proletariat did exist in Albania.

Which was extremely tiny. Again, the Peasants that became proletarians throughout the later mid 20th century did it magically? No, it was done so on behalf of the Albanian state. Again it is similar to creating slaves: The act of creating proletarians is something reserved for the Bourgeoisie only. And to later claim it is a dictatorship of the proletariat.... Wow.

Of the founding members of the CPA a sizable number were workers, including within the leadership.

And a lot of parties have a sizable number of Workers, both in leadership and in membership. The question is this: Is said party an embodiment of their real class interest? Not in this case, it was not.

Indeed, the History of the Party of Labor of Albania (1971 edition) which, as with the case of the Short Course being edited by Stalin, was edited by Enver Hoxha.

Such a credible source :rolleyes:

They did? Where? Do you mean the National Liberation Front?

Yes.

Yeah, the Left SRs only conspired with the Russian bourgeoisie and kulaks to overthrow the Bolsheviks. That's so much better.

Did the Bolsheviks know this? There is a reason they later disposed of them. My, my, you are a moron, no? As if I was defending them... Pathetic. You said that Albania's state had no coalitions from start (Probably because there was nothing to align itself with), and said the Bolsheviks aligned with the Left SRs. That isn't class collaboration or a call for unity on the basis of national struggle.

The fact is that the bourgeoisie had no political power in postwar Albania.

I beg to differ. It was a Bourgeois state.

They tried to organize opposition parties, of course, and were promptly arrested and/or shot.

By members of a rivaling Bourgeoisie.

Do you have something wrong with you? Hoxha made the point that the more people side with a revolution at its start then the less violent said revolution will be. I don't see why this is some sort of hotly debated issue. The civil war wasn't conducted on the basis of proletarians versus proletarians. It was conducted on the basis of the proletarian state versus foreign armies and their bourgeois allies in the White armies and administrations. Obviously Hoxha wasn't propounding on some sort of law, but it is still fairly obvious that, on the whole, more loyalty of the proletariat to the revolutionary cause = easier time conducting a revolution.

You said that
http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2440042&postcount=62

You asserted that the Bolshevik revolution "Proved this". You said it wasn't very violent at all. That is what we are debating, and have been.

Ismail

10th May 2012, 00:28

No, but many can be Landlords, like I pointed out. They certainly aren't Revolutionary in class character.And they weren't the ones carrying out the revolution, now were they?

If this said doctor was the embodiment of the classes collaborating with the CPA perhaps you'd have a point.Actually you should be the one trying to make a point. You've given no evidence that the bourgeoisie had anything to do with the CPA.

Which was extremely tiny. Again, the Peasants that became proletarians throughout the later mid 20th century did it magically? No, it was done so on behalf of the Albanian state. Again it is similar to creating slaves: The act of creating proletarians is something reserved for the Bourgeoisie only. And to later claim it is a dictatorship of the proletariat.... Wow.... you do realize that the socialist period (or if you prefer THE GHASTLY PERIOD OF STALINISM) lasted for like 45 years, right? Any country's proletariat would grow in size. Is industrialization now anti-communist?

Of course technically the proletariat ceased existence under socialism. Hence the term working-class was used.

And a lot of parties have a sizable number of Workers, both in leadership and in membership. The question is this: Is said party an embodiment of their real class interest? Not in this case, it was not.And why not? Why were the Bolsheviks embodying the interests of the working-class and the CPA not?

Such a credible sourceI await yours.

(Probably because there was nothing to align itself with)Well yeah, the Balli Kombëtar was destroyed. As was the Legaliteti group.

Seth

10th May 2012, 00:38

Rafiq

10th May 2012, 01:10

And they weren't the ones carrying out the revolution, now were they?

It was, after all, a Bourgeois revolution.

Actually you should be the one trying to make a point. You've given no evidence that the bourgeoisie had anything to do with the CPA.

You're missing the fucking point. The CPA were the Bourgeoisie. They took the role of the Bourgeoisie and from Peasants, they coerced and created Proletarians. Just as a master creates, from tribesmen, slaves.

... you do realize that the socialist period (or if you prefer THE GHASTLY PERIOD OF STALINISM) lasted for like 45 years, right? Any country's proletariat would grow in size.

Any country running the capitalist mode of production. I don't classify Stalinism, by the way, as a mode of production. I merely reference Albania as socialist only because it had what standard Socialist countries held, a ruling Communist party, with Red flag rhetoric. It ends there.

Is industrialization now anti-communist?

Within the capitalist mode of production, yes. Do you even know what a Proletarian is? The class which seeks to abolish itself?

Of course technically the proletariat ceased existence under socialism. Hence the term working-class was used.

It was a Proletariat. Any Marxist would understand this.

But what... I thought it was the dictatorship of the Proletariat! My oh my, a dictatorship of the proletariat... With a proletariat that ceased to exist!

That's rather astonishing!

And why not? Why were the Bolsheviks embodying the interests of the working-class and the CPA not?

Because the Bolsheviks were a revolutionary vanguard consisting solely of several Workers Militias, of Soviets, and so on, merging together. The Bolshevik Party was, in origin, a proletarian party, consisting of solely Proletarians. The CPA, on the contrary, was never.

I await yours.

It was useless, empty rhetoric about "Democratic" and "Socialist" character. Chances are, it was merely propaganda. No one in there right mind would deploy otherwise in some kind of empirical source, as it's just empty rhetoric.

Well yeah, the Balli Kombëtar was destroyed. As was the Legaliteti group.

So this was contrary to the Bolsheviks, where there were already several "Revolutionary" groups in existence.

By the way, is it not hilarious how Ismail didn't even bother to respond to the rest of my post? This isn't a particularly new tactic of his. When he falls into a hole, he stays there and pretends he isn't in it.

Rafiq

10th May 2012, 01:12

Rafiq, you're being dense. The revolution in general includes violent attempts at counter-revolution like the Russian Civil War. It includes the entire period of socialist construction. Hoxha is talking about October. This isn't hard to understand.

That was a mere degeneration of the revoltuion...

And no, Hoxha, according to Ismail, asserted that a Revolution is less violent when it has a majority concurring with it, as best displayed by the October Revolution.

This is laughable. I've yet to see an extremely violent revolution, revolution of course, as in the mere taking of some kind of symbol of State power. Of course there is little to no violence in this process. The question of violence comes afterwards.

Ismail

10th May 2012, 01:25

But what... I thought it was the dictatorship of the Proletariat! My oh my, a dictatorship of the proletariat... With a proletariat that ceased to exist!

That's rather astonishing!"We have achieved only the first, the lower phase, of communism. Even this first phase of communism, socialism, is far from being completed, it is built only in the rough.

In our country the parasitic classes, i.e., all and sundry capitalists and little capitalists, have been liquidated. Thanks to this, the exploitation of man by man has been abolished. This is not only a gigantic step forward in the lives of the peoples of our country, but also a gigantic step forward along the road of emancipation of the whole of mankind.

We, however, have not fully carried out the task of abolishing classes, although the working class of the U.S.S.R. which is in power is no longer a proletariat in the strict sense of the word, and the peasantry, the great bulk of which has joined the collective farms, is no longer the old peasantry."
(V.M. Molotov. The Constitution of Socialism: Speech Delivered at the Extraordinary Eighth Congress of Soviets of the U.S.S.R., November 29, 1936. Co-operative Publishing Society of Workers in the U.S.S.R.: Moscow. 1937. pp. 28-29.)

Because the Bolsheviks were a revolutionary vanguard consisting solely of several Workers Militias, of Soviets, and so on, merging together.During the course of the war the national liberation councils and communist party cells were established.

The Bolshevik Party was, in origin, a proletarian party, consisting of solely Proletarians. The CPA, on the contrary, was never."Consisting solely of proletarians"? Really? So Lenin was a proletarian? Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Pyatakov, etc. were proles? Hell not even Stalin was one.

Of course that doesn't decide what makes or breaks a proletarian party, but what you said is still ridiculous.

It was useless, empty rhetoric about "Democratic" and "Socialist" character. Chances are, it was merely propaganda. No one in there right mind would deploy otherwise in some kind of empirical source, as it's just empty rhetoric.If you don't know what democratic and socialist tasks are, and the difference between them, then you're a pretty bad "socialist."

Proclaiming that men are equal to women, declaring the right of universal suffrage, of secret ballot, of access to education, to health care, etc. are democratic rights. Other democratic tasks which would have promoted the development of capitalism in Albania were instead put onto the socialist road. E.g. the land reform broke the power of the old, feudal landowning class but it did not allow the growth of kulaks or other sorts of persons who could subsequently use their wealth to buy property or otherwise exert an influence on the state. Thus a democratic task (land to the peasants) was carried out simultaneously as a radical measure which did not simply disadvantage a few landowners (as it tended to do in other countries), but instead eradicated them as a class.

Rafiq

10th May 2012, 02:20

"We have achieved only the first, the lower phase, of communism. Even this first phase of communism, socialism, is far from being completed, it is built only in the rough.

In our country the parasitic classes, i.e., all and sundry capitalists and little capitalists, have been liquidated. Thanks to this, the exploitation of man by man has been abolished. This is not only a gigantic step forward in the lives of the peoples of our country, but also a gigantic step forward along the road of emancipation of the whole of mankind.

We, however, have not fully carried out the task of abolishing classes, although the working class of the U.S.S.R. which is in power is no longer a proletariat in the strict sense of the word, and the peasantry, the great bulk of which has joined the collective farms, is no longer the old peasantry."
(V.M. Molotov. The Constitution of Socialism: Speech Delivered at the Extraordinary Eighth Congress of Soviets of the U.S.S.R., November 29, 1936. Co-operative Publishing Society of Workers in the U.S.S.R.: Moscow. 1937. pp. 28-29.)

That doesn't address my question. You've, once again, stepped into a hole.

So it was not a dictatorship of the proletariat?

During the course of the war the national liberation councils and communist party cells were established.

Yes, and did they precede the PPSH? No? Then they were established by their Bourgeois benevolence. The Bolsheviks rose organically from the Proletarian movement, out of the Russian Social democratic party.

"Consisting solely of proletarians"? Really? So Lenin was a proletarian? Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Pyatakov, etc. were proles? Hell not even Stalin was one.

Are you stupid? The party's base was of proletarians. Have you not heard of the concept of a vanguard?

the CPA, just like any other successful communist party after the Bolsheviks, wasn't.

Of course that doesn't decide what makes or breaks a proletarian party, but what you said is still ridiculous.

Obviously you've no conception of the Vanguard party.

If you don't know what democratic and socialist tasks are, and the difference between them, then you're a pretty bad "socialist."

In Stalinist terms, they're meaningless.

Proclaiming that men are equal to women, declaring the right of universal suffrage, of secret ballot, of access to education, to health care, etc. are democratic rights. Other democratic tasks which would have promoted the development of capitalism in Albania were instead put onto the socialist road. E.g. the land reform broke the power of the old, feudal landowning class but it did not allow the growth of kulaks or other sorts of persons who could subsequently use their wealth to buy property or otherwise exert an influence on the state. Thus a democratic task (land to the peasants) was carried out simultaneously as a radical measure which did not simply disadvantage a few landowners (as it tended to do in other countries), but instead eradicated them as a class.

Yes, we know. The CPA took the role of the Bourgeoisie and coerced the peasant class into proletarians. This doesn't say a lot in your favor, though.

Ismail

10th May 2012, 02:48

So it was not a dictatorship of the proletariat?"The proletariat needs the Party for the purpose of achieving and maintaining the dictatorship. The Party is an instrument of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

But from this it follows that when classes disappear and the dictatorship of the proletariat withers away, the Party also will wither away."
(J.V. Stalin. Works Vol. 6. Foreign Languages Publishing House: Moscow. 1953. pp. 188-189.)

So yes, it was. Why are so you thick-headed?

Yes, and did they precede the PPSH? No?Yes? I guess all those working-class strikes which were suppressed throughout the 30's were organized by... something else.

The party's base was of proletarians. Have you not heard of the concept of a vanguard?Indeed I have, and in Albania this vanguard was the Communist Party.

Yes, we know. The CPA took the role of the Bourgeoisie and coerced the peasant class into proletarians. This doesn't say a lot in your favor, though.Actually Albania was a majority-peasant country and still to this day is.

But yeah, industrialization created a bigger amount of proletarians. What's your point, again? Especially since Albania attacked the Soviet revisionists who were creating imbalances between the city and countryside.

Rafiq

10th May 2012, 21:38

"The proletariat needs the Party for the purpose of achieving and maintaining the dictatorship. The Party is an instrument of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

But from this it follows that when classes disappear and the dictatorship of the proletariat withers away, the Party also will wither away."
(J.V. Stalin. Works Vol. 6. Foreign Languages Publishing House: Moscow. 1953. pp. 188-189.)

So yes, it was. Why are so you thick-headed?

You previously claimed that "Technically, there were no proletarians in Albania".

We clearly have seen that a large number of proletarians operated as former Peasants coerced, and the only class capable of creating Proletarians, like only a Master can create Slaves, were the Bourgeois class. This should pose as enough sufficient evidence of the class character of the CPA.

You're extremely contradictory.

So you have yet to explain: How can the dictatorship of the proletariat exist with either no proletariat, or a proletariat created by the CPA, and not already in existent organically? Or would you like to say it was the dictatorship of the tiny, small and irrelevant proletariat existent in Albania from the 1930's?

You must choose. Or, you can be a sensible person and come to the conclusion it was just empty rhetoric, deployed, like the very state itself, to serve and meet the ends of capital.

Yes? I guess all those working-class strikes which were suppressed throughout the 30's were organized by... something else.

Do you even know how large the "Working class" was in Albania? The fact that the party didn't arise directly from the Proletarian class itself and became a force external, which later had to "Organize" them (Simliiar to several Fascistic parties and Liberalist ones..) is enough evidence to expose the populist character of the CPA.

This is unlike the Bolsheviks, which formed organically and as a fasces of the Soviets, Worker's Militias, and Radical Soldiers. There's no inherent class collaboration in that. I'd even go as far as to say that the Peasantry didn't count, they were a class interest external from the proletariat which the Bolsheviks later went into heavy conflict with in the interest of the proletariat.

Indeed I have, and in Albania this vanguard was the Communist Party.

Yet this "Vanguard" was an agent of Capital, of Foreign Imperialism, and Bourgeois in nature.

Actually Albania was a majority-peasant country and still to this day is.

Are you denying the fact that the population of the proletariat heavily increased under the CPA, through Industrialization and so on?

But yeah, industrialization created a bigger amount of proletarians. What's your point, again?

The point was simple: Only the Bourgeois class can increase the number of proletarians. There is only one class interest of a proletarian: To abolish himself. Only a proletarian's enemy can create a proletarian. That is the point.

It is comparable to a Slave owner, whom later turns men into slaves, and claims to represent their emancipation. It's ludicrous.

Especially since Albania attacked the Soviet revisionists who were creating imbalances between the city and countryside.

Who cares?

Ismail

10th May 2012, 23:14

You previously claimed that "Technically, there were no proletarians in Albania".Only because you're saying that the fact that the peasantry was gradually turning into workers via the process of industrialization was proof that the Albanian government was evil and exploitative for some idiotic reason, since apparently only capitalism creates more workers. Yes, technically there were no proletarians in Albania after the triumph of socialism, if we take "proletarian" to mean someone who sells his labor-power to the capitalist and is exploited via the extraction of surplus-value by said capitalist. This was evidently seen as the case in the Soviet Union as well. It's only because you're an imbecilic autodidact when it comes to Marxism that you trip up over this issue.

So you have yet to explain: How can the dictatorship of the proletariat exist with either no proletariat, or a proletariat created by the CPA, and not already in existent organically? Or would you like to say it was the dictatorship of the tiny, small and irrelevant proletariat existent in Albania from the 1930's?Well lets see, there were a bunch of ways it did in Albania.

1. It had the Communist Party of Albania as its vanguard.
2. It had the trade unions.
3. It had the people's councils.
4. It had the socialist economic base which by 1976 had achieved the construction of socialism in the main.
5. It had the people's army but also the doctrine of people's war in which the entire population was to be armed to resist external attack.

The situation created by these processes was one in which, as Party history notes, an alliance of the working-class and peasantry, with the working-class at the head, was achieved, as it was in the USSR.

Calling the proletariat of Albania "irrelevant" in the 30's shows your lack of understanding. Communist cells formed trade unions which played a leading role in the economic struggles of the workers during that decade. The situation was deemed particularly upsetting to the extent that the government of King Zog passed greater laws against communist activity.

By saying that the Albanian proletariat was "irrelevant" you're implying that it had no impact on Albanian society and economy, which is clearly not true. Furthermore it strikes one as reminiscent of the arguments of some Albanian "communists" circa 1939-41 that they had to work "from within," inside the fascist apparatus set up after the Italian invasion because Albania "had no proletariat" and the Italians meanwhile would "create" it.

Do you even know how large the "Working class" was in Albania?Yes I do, actually. Do you?

The fact that the party didn't arise directly from the Proletarian class itself and became a force external, which later had to "Organize" them (Simliiar to several Fascistic parties and Liberalist ones..) is enough evidence to expose the populist character of the CPA.Uh, what? The Communist Party of Albania was founded by three communist groups: Korça, Shkodra and "Youth." The Comintern ordered, and the Shkodra group requested, Yugoslav assistance in helping to set up the CPA in the conditions of fascist occupation.

"Following an initial failure, two Yugoslav emissaries, Miladin Popovic and Dusan Mugosa, convinced representatives of three of Albania's communist groups to meet with them in Tirana at the beginning of November 1941. After six days—and twenty years of struggle—the fifteen communists present at this meeting elected a provisional central committee of seven and in so doing founded the Albanian Communist Party (ACP)....

Mugosa himself has written, 'True, the movement was fragmented and lacked coordination. True we assisted in establishing proper discipline and cooperation among the various groups. Yet this should not be interpreted to mean that the Albanians could not accomplish this task themselves. They possessed capable leaders who would have, in time solved their administrative problems. We were invited to assist and did so.'"
(Bernd J. Fischer. Albania at War, 1939-1945. Indiana: Purdue University Press. 1999. pp. 123-124.)

Are you denying the fact that the population of the proletariat heavily increased under the CPA, through Industrialization and so on?Not only am I not "denying" it, I'm noting it is a quite natural process, not an evil one. Of course I recognize what you're saying: Albania was a capitalist state, ergo any proletariat it created was clearly done for ulterior exploitative aims. Not like I care since... I don't share the view that it's a capitalist state, ergo I regard that argument as dumb.

The point was simple: Only the Bourgeois class can increase the number of proletarians. There is only one class interest of a proletarian: To abolish himself. Only a proletarian's enemy can create a proletarian. That is the point.Clearly the Albanians should have followed Khrushchev's advice: industrialization can be supplied "from abroad," the peasantry should instead turn Albania into the "orchard garden of the socialist community of nations."

Who cares?You, apparently, since you're the one mentioning the supposed coercion of peasants into the industrial workforce.

Rafiq

11th May 2012, 01:00

Only because you're saying that the fact that the peasantry was gradually turning into workers via the process of industrialization was proof that the Albanian government was evil and exploitative for some idiotic reason,

I wasn't morally criticizing them, I was merely pointing out there class character.

since apparently only capitalism creates more workers.

Only capitalism produces wage earning proletarians, as only Slave societies and those with their remnants produce Slaves.

Yes, technically there were no proletarians in Albania after the triumph of socialism, if we take "proletarian" to mean someone who sells his labor-power to the capitalist and is exploited via the extraction of surplus-value by said capitalist.

That isn't necessarily what a proletarian is. Again, you need to stop thinking within Bourgeois rationalist terms. "Exploitation" doesn't at all mean throwing workers into mines and whipping them or whatever. It is an objective scientific term within Marx's capital, not a moral criticism.

I'm sure the Albanian state did indeed know the definition of a proletarian, in Marxian terms, as most Socialist states at the least had a decent grasp on Marxian structural thought. And this very state called it a "dictatorship of the proletariat".

But how could this be, if, like you said, under the definition of a proletarian, there were no proletarians?

Or is your definition of a proletarian external from Marx's? In this case, we can argue that Proletarians in Albania indeed did work for a wage and so on, and "Sold their labor power" to capitalists, or agents of capital, if you will.

This was evidently seen as the case in the Soviet Union as well. It's only because you're an imbecilic autodidact when it comes to Marxism that you trip up over this issue.

Seen as what? The Soviet Union indeed had a similar Class character, as most socialist states did. Albania, was by no means an exception.

Well lets see, there were a bunch of ways it did in Albania.

1. It had the Communist Party of Albania as its vanguard.

The Communist party never originated organically from the Albanian proletariat.

2. It had the trade unions.

Just like the Soviet Union did. They were all State controlled.

3. It had the people's councils.

This doesn't mean anything. Under this logic, Tito's Yugoslavia was a thriving example of the DOTP because of self management.

4. It had the socialist economic base which by 1976 had achieved the construction of socialism in the main.

What is a "Socialist economic base"? Albania ran the capitalist mode of production, and it would be a great debate for us, if you want. I know this for a fact.

5. It had the people's army but also the doctrine of people's war in which the entire population was to be armed to resist external attack.

I don't consider this at all a tenet of the DOTP, but it's somewhat interesting. Perhaps provide a source? I'm not denying it, I'm just curious as to what the source is. I find it somewhat out of place, a Socialist state with arm rights to it's citizens.

The situation created by these processes was one in which, as Party history notes, an alliance of the working-class and peasantry, with the working-class at the head, was achieved, as it was in the USSR.

Working class dictatorship cannot exist simultaneously as the capitalist mode of production persists. Such is an impossibility. This "Alliance" with the peasantry was artificial, i.e. simple Bourgeois propaganda.

Calling the proletariat of Albania "irrelevant" in the 30's shows your lack of understanding. Communist cells formed trade unions which played a leading role in the economic struggles of the workers during that decade. The situation was deemed particularly upsetting to the extent that the government of King Zog passed greater laws against communist activity.

The Proletariat in Albania were a great minority. More so than the proletariat in Russia. I highly doubt it was the focus of attention to the Communist party.

By saying that the Albanian proletariat was "irrelevant" you're implying that it had no impact on Albanian society and economy, which is clearly not true.

Irrelevant to the Communist party, for the most part.

Furthermore it strikes one as reminiscent of the arguments of some Albanian "communists" circa 1939-41 that they had to work "from within," inside the fascist apparatus set up after the Italian invasion because Albania "had no proletariat" and the Italians meanwhile would "create" it.

Yes, you mean like three Communist academics or something? This applies to virtually all of Eastern Europe: there is not much you can do after the invading forces are dealt with.

Yes I do, actually. Do you?

Yup.

Uh, what? The Communist Party of Albania was founded by three communist groups: Korça, Shkodra and "Youth." The Comintern ordered, and the Shkodra group requested, Yugoslav assistance in helping to set up the CPA in the conditions of fascist occupation.

What does this have to do with having a Proletarian base?

"Following an initial failure, two Yugoslav emissaries, Miladin Popovic and Dusan Mugosa, convinced representatives of three of Albania's communist groups to meet with them in Tirana at the beginning of November 1941. After six days—and twenty years of struggle—the fifteen communists present at this meeting elected a provisional central committee of seven and in so doing founded the Albanian Communist Party (ACP)....

Mugosa himself has written, 'True, the movement was fragmented and lacked coordination. True we assisted in establishing proper discipline and cooperation among the various groups. Yet this should not be interpreted to mean that the Albanians could not accomplish this task themselves. They possessed capable leaders who would have, in time solved their administrative problems. We were invited to assist and did so.'"

Cool. Where is the part about the proletariat base?

Not only am I not "denying" it, I'm noting it is a quite natural process, not an evil one.

Marx once, pointed out that to refer to the development of a mode of production being "Natural" is ludicrous. He pointed out that many of the Political Economists considered Feudalism and so on to be relations devoid of any natural base, with the exception of capitalism. In this same way, I dismiss Albanian Socialism's characterization as "Natural" in the same way. There is no "Natural" process. The coercion of peasants is a forceful act, and does not occur naturally. It is not "Evil" as "Evil" does not exist. This is not a moral argument. It is an argument about the class character of the CPA.

Of course I recognize what you're saying: Albania was a capitalist state, ergo any proletariat it created was clearly done for ulterior exploitative aims. Not like I care since... I don't share the view that it's a capitalist state, ergo I regard that argument as dumb.

No, for the serving of Albanian capital. Again, what are you implying with the usage of "Exploitation"?

Again, why is Albania not a capitalist state? Why don't you hold that view?

Clearly the Albanians should have followed Khrushchev's advice: industrialization can be supplied "from abroad," the peasantry should instead turn Albania into the "orchard garden of the socialist community of nations."

No matter which course of action they took, they were doomed. So long as proletarian revolution is devoid from the Industrialized nations, capitalism cannot be surpassed.

You, apparently, since you're the one mentioning the supposed coercion of peasants into the industrial workforce.

Your post had nothing to do with that.

I'd also like to add that you should start actually replying to all of my posts. You completely ignored the ones in regards to the Bolshevik revolution being "Non violent" and you've ignored my comments about Slavery. Why must you so-heavily regulate what you reply to and what you do not?

Ismail

11th May 2012, 01:48

But how could this be, if, like you said, under the definition of a proletarian, there were no proletarians?Using this logic the very term itself is contradictory because as soon as the working-class takes control over the state and economy they no longer face exploitation by the bourgeoisie.

The Communist party never originated organically from the Albanian proletariat.Did the RSDLP? If so, explain how.

This doesn't mean anything. Under this logic, Tito's Yugoslavia was a thriving example of the DOTP because of self management.Actually people's councils weren't in factories, so no. Hoxha explicitly attacked the Yugoslav system of "workers' self-management" as an anti-Marxist and anarcho-syndicalist policy. When a number of reactionary economists advocated a version of it for Yugoslavia in the early 70's they were expelled from their positions.

I don't consider this at all a tenet of the DOTP, but it's somewhat interesting. Perhaps provide a source? I'm not denying it, I'm just curious as to what the source is. I find it somewhat out of place, a Socialist state with arm rights to it's citizens.Jan Myrdal in Albania Defiant, p. 146: "There are weapons in every village. Ten minutes after the alarm sounds, the entire population of a village must be ready for combat. There has never been any shortage of weapons in Albania, but never have the people been as armed as they are today."

Children were required every week to train with weapons. The whole point of the bunker program was for villagers and urban-dwellers to enter them with their guns. The role of the regular army in the defense of the country was downplayed in the late 60's onwards when military ranks were abolished.

Yes, you mean like three Communist academics or something?There were groups that took the line of "working within" the quisling government and fascist apparatuses rather than launching partisan warfare. Such adherents to the former tended to be executed during the course of the war.

Yup.Let's see the statistics, then. The History of the Party of Labor of Albania has them and notes the relative size of the working-class was not large pre-liberation, but you don't trust that source.

What does this have to do with having a Proletarian base?You claimed, falsely, that the formation of the CPA was an external event. The fact is that, as bourgeois historians like Nicholas C. Pano and others note, the communist groups which later formed the CPA were instrumental in the formation of effective trade unions which throughout the 1930's played a leading role in the economic and political struggles of the working-class. Founding members like Pilo Peristeri, Koçi Xoxe, Tuk Jakova, and so on were workers and leaders in the aforementioned trade union efforts.

WanderingCactus

11th May 2012, 02:03

Popped back in to see where this thread went.

To Albania, apparently.

Koba Junior

11th May 2012, 02:09

Popped back in to see where this thread went.

To Albania, apparently.

Mirë se vjen. A flisni Shqip?

Drosophila

11th May 2012, 02:18

Popped back in to see where this thread went.

To Albania, apparently.

All roads lead to Albania.

Omsk

11th May 2012, 09:07

As i see this dicussion shifted to socialist Albania,i feel i should jump in for a word or two regarding the formation of the Albanian CP. This is an interesting matter and i have read a significant amount of books about it. But,since Ismail's focus is on Albanian history,i'd like if he could read this little text and examine what of it has some precise historical value. I am sure that we can evade the enmities between us ("Us" ML's and Rafiq.) (Although i never had a 'heated' discussion with Rafiq.) and move forward to civil and informative discussion for those interested in the complex history of the Balkans.

The formation of the Albanian CP. -

Bourgeois Albania was one of the first countries to be invaded by the armed troops of the Fascist states, just a month after the first victim of the militant Fascist bourgeois – Czechoslovakia .On the 7th of April 1939 some 173 ships, about 600 bombers and almost 50.000 elite trained Italian soldiers invaded the small country. The weak Albanian military had no means with which it could defend itself , and it was defeated with little problems. On the 14th of April , the Italian army ended the invasion ,and proclaimed that "Albania was crushed and liberated" - King Zog like most of the old monarchs of Europe ,abandoned the country. The main problem of the Albanian communists and the Comintern was the lack of an organized Communist Party , which could lead the Albanian people in the struggle against Fascism .The Communist party was formed only in 1941,when the struggle against Fascism began in other countries. The situation was grim. There were many reasons which had a huge influence on the lack of a communist party - Albania was on of the backward countries , and the teachings of Lenin and Marx reached it some time after they reached other countries. Another problem was the fragmented revolutionary left , which had little unity and a lot of hostile leaders .The most famous of these small revolutionary groups were : "Korca" which had it's main power circle in Berat , later in Tirana, than "Skadar", plus some groups of student 'intellectual' Trotskyites, "Zjari" with various other youth groups and other movements. Some of these groups were hostile but most of them had their own 'paths' and ideas, each willing to fight for power. The Comintern, as the supreme organ of the world socialist movement, and the guiding hand of the smaller parties, proposed a unification in 1937,but the efforts were futile. A move by a man called Ali Kelmendi who tried to unite the small groups was a failure, because he died on the 11t of February 1939 in Paris, although he had plans to return to his homeland with directives from the Comintern. Ali Kelmendi also participated in the Spanish Civil War on the Republican side as a soldier in the International brigades. The CC of the CPY decided to help the Albanian communists in mid-1939, the Comintern supported this initiative. In Belgrade, demonstrations against the Italian invasion of Albania were held. However, in 1940 the first signs of a clear resistance came into being. The first partisan groups were formed and some fought the Fascists, while others, non-communists simply refused to fight for the Italians. However, the single and weak revolutionary groups failed to launch a nation-wide uprising. Some also shared the Fascist ideal of a "Greater Albania". The Yugoslav communists sent Miladin Popovic with orders from the CPY to Albania trough Fadil Hoxha (Albanian communist.) However, he fell into enemy hands and was trapped in a prison near Elbasan, the group "Skadar" sent Fadil Hoxha to meet the Yugoslav communists and negotiate and plan a rescue operation. The Yugoslavs sent Dusan Mugosa to Albania, and he organized a rescue operation in which he along with Albanian communists rescued Miladin Popovic and the circles who tried to form the Albanian communist party got their first victories. Dusan Mugosa wrote in his diaries about the situation, and he noted that the "Korca" was the oldest of the groups, it was led by Koco Tasko,a formed diplomat and Koci Xoxe,a worker who was with the "Korca" from 1939 onward and the worker Mihalj Lako. - In total, there were 8 groups of various ideological backgrounds , of which two were Trotskyite. After many talks, wrangling and persuasion the deal was done. The 3 main groups were to form an Albanian CP, the conference was held illegally on the 8th of November 1941 in Tirana. The main task of the new party were mainly related to the struggle against Fascism, the forming of new party cells and unions, the fight against sectarianism, forming the friendship and the bond between the friendly Serbian, Greek, Macedonian and Bulgarian people which were fighting against the same Fascist invader. On this meeting, the first Central Committee was elected - in the first temporary Central Committee the following figures got elected: (Seven members.) - Enver Hoxha, Kemal Stafa, Ramadan Citaku, Koci Xoxe, Nako Spiru, Kristo Temeljko and Tuk Jankova. The general secretary was not elected, but the head of the CC was Enver Hoxha. The new party was quite small - some 700 communists were present in 1943, and when the party was formed, about 200-300 members were present. The communist party very soon got popular, and more and more workers joined, so the numbers were always increasing. The main functionaries of the party soon started to travel around the country and organize both revolutionary groups and military wings. In 1942 the first issue of "Zeri and Populit" (Rough translation - Voice of the People.) was out. Zeri and Populit was a major factor in the propaganda war against the Fascist invader. The main national liberation organ of Albania was also formed. However, in 1942 the representatives of the Albanian bourgeois, the reactionaries and the nationalists formed the Balli Kombëtar. These notorious groups of murderers soon became completely allied with the Fascists, like the Yugoslav Chetniks . (The Chetniks were a nationalist military force which operated in Yugoslavia during the National-Liberation War , it was a loyal ally of the Nazis.) The Balli Kombëtar soon got its allies – Zog’s officers and social-democrats. But the Albanian communist party soon formed its own fighting force - The first shock brigade of the National Liberation Army of Albania was formed on the 15th of August 1943. This event can be marked as the start of the full front war against Fascism, which got its ally in the nationalist movements.

The rest (The "rest" is the revolutionary war and the post-war diplomacy, not the early days of the communist resistance of Albania.) has little to do with the formation of the Albanian communist party, so this is where i finish. Any questions regarding this topic are welcome and i will gladly answer them. (I'd like to see Ismail’s opinion on this, and any comments regarding the introductory text.)

(I think i fixed the grammatical errors,but my modest knowledge of English is not a guarantee.)

Ismail

11th May 2012, 10:30

Lots of typing errors, but otherwise basically accurate.

Omsk

11th May 2012, 10:43

Lots of typing errors, but otherwise basically accurate.

Yes,i don't have auto-correct or something like that. (And i didn't type it in word,but here,Revleft.)

Rafiq

12th May 2012, 15:29

Using this logic the very term itself is contradictory because as soon as the working-class takes control over the state and economy they no longer face exploitation by the bourgeoisie.

There's a differecne between a proletarian state founded upon proletarians, of whom were previously exploited by the Bourgeois class, and a so-called "Proletarian state" that in itself, creates proletarians.

Again, I use Spartacus as an analogy. An army of escaped slaves is different from an Army creating slaves.

Did the RSDLP? If so, explain how.

The RSDLP indeed did. It focused, almost completely solely on the proletariat, contrary to petty bourgeois concepts of "National Unity" and so on.

Actually people's councils weren't in factories, so no. Hoxha explicitly attacked the Yugoslav system of "workers' self-management" as an anti-Marxist and anarcho-syndicalist policy. When a number of reactionary economists advocated a version of it for Yugoslavia in the early 70's they were expelled from their positions.

The point, is that Worker's self management, factories or not, is not an indication from deviation from the capitalist mode of production.

Jan Myrdal in Albania Defiant, p. 146: "There are weapons in every village. Ten minutes after the alarm sounds, the entire population of a village must be ready for combat. There has never been any shortage of weapons in Albania, but never have the people been as armed as they are today."

Children were required every week to train with weapons. The whole point of the bunker program was for villagers and urban-dwellers to enter them with their guns. The role of the regular army in the defense of the country was downplayed in the late 60's onwards when military ranks were abolished.

Interesting.. I never knew that.

There were groups that took the line of "working within" the quisling government and fascist apparatuses rather than launching partisan warfare. Such adherents to the former tended to be executed during the course of the war.

Again, in size, they were most likely small.

Let's see the statistics, then. The History of the Party of Labor of Albania has them and notes the relative size of the working-class was not large pre-liberation, but you don't trust that source.

It was of common knowledge the proletariat wasn't large. So, I don't think there is a need for statistics, for surly you recognize this, no?

You claimed, falsely, that the formation of the CPA was an external event. The fact is that, as bourgeois historians like Nicholas C. Pano and others note, the communist groups which later formed the CPA were instrumental in the formation of effective trade unions which throughout the 1930's played a leading role in the economic and political struggles of the working-class. Founding members like Pilo Peristeri, Koçi Xoxe, Tuk Jakova, and so on were workers and leaders in the aforementioned trade union efforts.

The difference is this: That they did not form from Proletariat struggle, but became a factor which would drive it elsewhere. This is, by no means an indication that it was not a proletarian group, but the point resides here: That, at the very least, during or after World War Two, it was in nature Left of capital, as was every other Eastern European communist party. It was near-proxy of the Soviet Union (Which was a capitalist state), and later would develop Albania as such as well.

Ismail

13th May 2012, 12:23

The RSDLP indeed did. It focused, almost completely solely on the proletariat, contrary to petty bourgeois concepts of "National Unity" and so on.I don't see what that has to do with anything. Not like there was a coalition government or that the CPA wasn't in control of the national unity process in the war against the occupiers.

The point, is that Worker's self management, factories or not, is not an indication from deviation from the capitalist mode of production.Well yeah, I don't need you to tell me that. I could, you know, read Hoxha.

It was of common knowledge the proletariat wasn't large. So, I don't think there is a need for statistics, for surly you recognize this, no?Yet the size of a proletariat does not mean that it cannot exert political and economic power. It was bigger than many Central Asian regions of the Russian Empire at the time of the October Revolution.

That, at the very least, during or after World War Two, it was in nature Left of capital, as was every other Eastern European communist party. It was near-proxy of the Soviet Union (Which was a capitalist state), and later would develop Albania as such as well.And yet it spent the last 30 years of its existence denouncing the USSR and refusing to reconcile with its revisionist leadership.

Rafiq

13th May 2012, 17:35

I don't see what that has to do with anything. Not like there was a coalition government or that the CPA wasn't in control of the national unity process in the war against the occupiers.

It doesn't matter. The Ideological rhetoric that was deployed sais a lot about the class nature of the CPA.

Well yeah, I don't need you to tell me that. I could, you know, read Hoxha.

Did you not use "Worker's councils" as a signification that it was the DOTP?

Yet the size of a proletariat does not mean that it cannot exert political and economic power.

Of course, as was the case in Bolshevik Russia. That is, however, not the point. The point was, was that the Albanian proletariat wasn't politically influential enough to formulate the CPA. I mean, how many revolutionary organizations were in Albania? In the Russian Empire, the Proletariat, though small, was very powerful and influential, in terms of class character. They did indeed collide with the Bourgeois class on a regular basis. In Albania's case, they would just seem to be just another group on the checklist of the CPA, contrary to the Bolsheviks, whose base was the proletariat itself, where the peasants were the ones on the checklist.

It was bigger than many Central Asian regions of the Russian Empire at the time of the October Revolution.

When a proletarian revolution exists in the heart of any empire, no matter how small they are elsewhere, other proletarians will respond to this call.

And yet it spent the last 30 years of its existence denouncing the USSR and refusing to reconcile with its revisionist leadership.

It was an interesting turn of events. First, a proxy, of course. And then, with a feud with Yugoslavia, it broke off relations and hitched a ride with China. After it was mature enough, it mutated away from being a proxy and denounced China.

Ismail

14th May 2012, 05:12

It doesn't matter. The Ideological rhetoric that was deployed sais a lot about the class nature of the CPA.Indeed, it called for all traitors to be opposed to the end, and for a people's democratic government to triumph against the fascist occupation. Such was a correct stand against the bourgeois and feudal forces at work.

Did you not use "Worker's councils" as a signification that it was the DOTP?I did not. People's Councils were not "workers' councils" in factories. They were local and regional administrative units akin to soviets in the USSR. The Councils were theoretically given wide powers, as was the case with soviets, and were considered one of the ways in which the dictatorship of the proletariat was exercised.

I mean, how many revolutionary organizations were in Albania?As noted there were the three main communist groups: the one in Korçë, the one in Shkodër, and the "Youth" group. There was also Zjarri and other Trotskyist or anarchistic groups. As for other organizations, Puna (Work) was notable and was organized by the Korçë group. For a time one of the most popular newspapers in Albania was communist-controlled before the government shut it down.

The working-class was clearly important to the Albanian economy; when it protested said protests were promptly met with bayonets by the government. Albanian oil, chromium, etc. industries were what the imperialist powers focused on exploiting and them going into inaction would have deprived Albania of basically any exports.

It was an interesting turn of events. First, a proxy, of course. And then, with a feud with Yugoslavia, it broke off relations and hitched a ride with China. After it was mature enough, it mutated away from being a proxy and denounced China.And yet China had very little political impact on it, nothing resembling a proxy. Mao in fact halted an attempt to translate his Quotations into Albanian, arguing that its words weren't relevant to it, which surprised the Albanians present.

Albania was seen as a "sub-satellite" under Yugoslav domination in the 1944-1948 period. Indeed, even during the war the Yugoslavs tried to undermine the work of the CPA. They argued back then that it was "sectarian" and "wasn't willing to unite" with "patriotic" forces (e.g. the collaborationist Balli Kombëtar), etc. which further demonstrates that, for all the talk of national unity, it didn't actually put a dent in the CPA's socialist policies. Hoxha explicitly stated during the war that to share political power with any other force would be suicidal to the dictatorship of the proletariat.